Crono Service scarl and Others and Anitrav — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori v Roma Capitale and Regione Lazio.
Date: 2014-02-13
27. In view of the wording of the question referred, it should be borne in mind from the outset that in the context of Article 267 TFEU the Court has no jurisdiction to rule either on the interpretation of provisions of national laws or regulations or on their conformity with EU law (see, inter alia, Case C‑107/98 Teckal  [1999] ECR I‑8121, paragraph 33, and Case C‑237/04 Enirisorse  [2006] ECR I‑2843, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
28. That being so, it is settled law that, if questions have been improperly formulated or if they go beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the Court by Article 267 TFEU, the Court is free to extract from all the information provided by the referring court and, in particular, from the statement of grounds in the order for reference the elements of EU law which, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute, require interpretation (see, inter alia, Case C‑384/08 Attanasio Group  [2010] ECR I‑2055, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited). To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (see, inter alia, Attanasio Group , paragraph 19; Case C‑243/09 Fuß  [2010] ECR I‑9849, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited; and Case C‑249/11 Byankov  [2012] ECR, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).
31. As regards, first, the EU competition rules, the Court has consistently held that the need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use to the referring court requires that court to define the factual and legal context of its questions or, at the very least, to explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. Those requirements are of particular importance in the field of competition, which is characterised by complex factual and legal situations (see, inter alia, Attanasio Group , paragraph 32 and the case-law cited, and Joined Cases C‑357/10 to C‑359/10 Duomo Gpa and Others  [2012] ECR, paragraph 22).
33. In such circumstances, the question referred must be declared inadmissible to the extent that it seeks an interpretation of the EU competition rules (see, by analogy, inter alia, Duomo Gpa and Others , paragraph 24, and Joined Cases C‑162/12 and C‑163/12 Airport Shuttle Express and Others  [2014] ECR, paragraphs 37 to 42).
34. As regards, secondly, Article 49 TFEU, it is common ground that all elements of the disputes before the referring court are confined within a single Member State. In those circumstances, it is necessary to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction in the present cases to give a ruling on that provision (see, by analogy, inter alia, Case C‑380/05 Centro Europa 7  [2008] ECR I‑349, paragraph 64; Case C‑245/09 Omalet  [2010] ECR I‑13771, paragraphs 9 and 10; and Duomo Gpa and Others , paragraph 25).
35. Legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, according to its wording, applies without distinction to operators established in the Italian Republic and to operators established in other Member States, is generally likely to fall within the scope of the provisions on the fundamental freedoms established by the FEU Treaty only to the extent to which it applies to situations related to intra-Community trade (see, to that effect, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑321/94 to C‑324/94 Pistre and Others [1997] ECR I‑2343, paragraph 45; Case C‑448/98 Guimont  [2000] ECR I‑10663, paragraph 21; and Duomo Gpa and Others , paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
36. As regards, more specifically, Article 49 TFEU, the Court has consistently held that that provision cannot be applied to activities which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by EU law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case 20/87 Gauchard  [1987] ECR 4879, paragraph 12; Case 204/87 Bekaert  [1988] ECR 2029, paragraph 12; Case C‑212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government [2008] ECR I‑1683, paragraph 33; and Case C‑84/11 Susisalo and Others  [2012] ECR, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
38. It is true that, according to the line of authority devolving from Guimont , the Court’s answer to questions concerning fundamental freedoms of the European Union may, even in a purely internal situation, nevertheless be of use to the referring court, especially if its national law were to require it to allow a national to enjoy the same rights as those which a national of another Member State would derive from EU law in the same situation (see, inter alia, Case C‑393/08 Sbarigia  [2010] ECR I‑6337, paragraph 23, and Susisalo and Others , paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
42. However, pursuant to Article 58 TFEU, the freedom to provide services in the transport sector is not governed by Article 56 TFEU, but rather by Title VI in Part Three of the FEU Treaty, which concerns the common transport policy (see Case C‑338/09 Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetrieb  [2010] ECR I‑13927, paragraphs 29 and 30). Moreover, as the referring court points out, car and driver hire services such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not, in essence, fall within the scope of the provisions adopted, on the basis of Article 91(1) TFEU, in order to liberalise transport services.
43. It follows that, in the light of the specific circumstances of the disputes before the referring court, the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU has no bearing on the facts and purpose of those disputes (see, by analogy, Sbarigia , paragraphs 23, 24, 27 and 28). As the Court has consistently held, it has no jurisdiction to answer a question referred for a preliminary ruling in such circumstances (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I‑4921, paragraph 61; Case C‑567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius  [2009] ECR I‑9021, paragraph 43; Omalet , paragraph 11; and Case C‑27/11 Vinkov  [2012] ECR, paragraph 44).