CELEX: 62015CN0316
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-316/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council

21.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/22
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council
   (Case C-316/15)
   (2015/C 311/27)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.
   
      Defendant: Westminster City Council
   
      Questions referred
   
   Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:
   
               (1)
            
            
               does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?
            
         
               (2)
            
            
               does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss,
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or
                        
                     
                           (c)
                        
                        
                           any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  OJ L 376, p. 36