CELEX: 62015CB0526
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-526/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Inadmissibility — Transportation of persons by motor vehicles — Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas — Requirement to hold an operating permit)

27.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/6
            
         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV
   (Case C-526/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Inadmissibility - Transportation of persons by motor vehicles - Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas - Requirement to hold an operating permit))
   (2017/C 063/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA
   
      Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV
   
      in the presence of: Uber International BV, Rasier Operations BV, Uber BV, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi — and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Dutch-language Commercial Court, Brussels, Belgium), by decision of 23 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.
   
      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.