nfocuna - Case-law of the Court of Justice Engin (on) search form > List of results > Documents tone > age of document: Engan —¥ €CU:EU:¢:2017:961 provisional fet SUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 20 December 2017 (*) ce for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 58(1) TFEU — Services in the field of transport ~ = Services in the internal market — Directive 2000/31/EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Information ‘of 3 smartphone application and for remuneration, (Referen journeys — Requirement for Directive 2006/123/EC recjety services — Intermediation service to connect, by means cen professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban J authorisation) In Case €-434/15, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona {commercial Court No 3, Barcelona, Spain), made by decision of 16 July 2015, received at the Court on 7 August 2015, in the proceedings Asociacién Profesional Elite Taxi uber Systems Spain SL, THE COURT (Grand Chamber), President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Tle8ié, J.L. da Cruz Vilaca, composed of K. Lenaerts, J Malenovsky and E. Levits, Presidents of Chambers, €. Juhdsz, A. Borg Berthet, D. Svaby (Rapporteur), C. Lycourgos, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Judges, ‘Advocate General: M. Szpunar, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 29 November 2016, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of ‘Asociacién Profesional Elite Taxi, by M. Balagué Farré and D. Salmerén Porras, abogados, and J.A. Lépez-Juredo Gonzalez, procurador, ‘Uber ‘Systems Spain SL, by B. Le Bret and D. Calciu, avocats, R. Allendesalazar Corcho, J.J. Montero Pascual, C. Feméndez Vicién and 1. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogados, the Spanish Government, by M.A. Sampol Pucurull and A. Rubio Gonzalez, acting as Agents, the Estonian Government, by N. Grinberg, acting as Agent, Ireland, by E. Creedon, L. Williams and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and A. Carroll, Barrister, the Greek Government, by M. Michelogiannaki, acting as Agent, the French Government, by D. Colas, G. de Bergues and R. Coesme, acting as Agents, the Netherlands Government, by H. Stergiou and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents, the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent, the Finnish Government, by S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent, F. Wilman, J. Hottiaux and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, the European Commission, by E. Gippini Fournier, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by C. Zatschler, @. 89 and C. Perrin, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 May 2017, gives the following Judgment of Articles 56 TFEU, Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information Society services (0) 1998 L 204, p. 37), in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (0) 1998 | 217, the Council of 8 June as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the Euro} p. 18) (‘Directive 98/34’), Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of F000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, In particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Markt Coirective on electronic commerce’) (0) 2000 L178, p. 1), and Arties 2 and 9 of Directive 2006/123/EC of te he internal market (0) 2006 | 376, European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services In tl Elite Taxi’), a professional taxi p. 36). ‘The request has been made in proceedings between Asociacién Profesional Elite Tax! drivers’ association in Barcelona (Spain), and Uber Systems Spain SL, a company related to Uber Technologies tn Concerning the provision by the latter, by means of a smartphone application, of the paid service consisting of hip, europe eufureldocumeniSocumenttjsesionid=-9ea742dc30dotSab3 tebach4Beeb0d8e52ab06 103 o34Kai cSaM4ORcnaS Nar\ (CURIA. Dovumante Connecting non-professional drivers using thelr own vehicle with persons who wis! SSeing any auministrative licence oF authorisation, eesti ht {Legal context Evlew Drrective 94/4 Ritcre 1(2) of Directive 98/34 provides: “for tne purposes of this Directive, the following meanings shal! apply: srvzow ke urban Journeys, without service", any Information Society service, that Is to say, any service normal astenee by clectrone means and atthe individual request ofsreepent of services, ns" Temuneraion a « for tne purposes ofthis geiition “Se estance™ means that the service Is provided without th x ° without the parties being simultaneously present, corse mene’ mean ta the src serial rceveda dean by mang of earn ripment forthe processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and ently transmitted, conv Sia eceved by wie, by redo. by optical means or by other electromagnetic meas) nn veneer Comwevee ot the individual request of a Fecipient of services” means that the service ls provided through the transmis data on individual request. ° mission of An ingicatvelst of services not covered by this defition is set out in Annex “in accra wat ates 10nd of icv CU) 2038/1595 of te European Pareto of Cour of Szptemse 2015 fag down 2 precede forte prin of nermaton in he Rl of rain reauaons an of fle on Htormaton Sodety sevice (0) 2018 | 3,1, brane a4 os epee on 7 Orwoe 2015 werneles, Directive 98/34 remains applicable ratone tempol tothe dispute inte main proceedings Directive 2000/31 Aartcle 22) of Directive 2000/31 provides that, forthe purposes of he directive, “formation soley services’ mes services within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34. + int \ “ne Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/31 states: ee Nromber states may not, for reasons falling within the coordinated fed, restr the freedom to prow information society services from another Member State. year Sve frendom Sse, 4) Member States may take measures to derogate from paragraph 2 in respect of a given information societ Service ite feliowing conditions are fue; amgraph 2 hirespachiot = aise inte sd the measures shall be: necessary for one of the following reasons: ‘public policy, in particular the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, including the protection of minors and the fight against any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality, and Ziolations of human dignity concerning individual persons, ‘the protection of public health, public secur, including the safeguarding of national security and defence, the protection of consumers, including investors; ‘akon against a given Information society service which prejudices the objectives referred to in point (i) or which presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to those objectives; proportionate to those objectives; sere texing the measures in question and without prejudice to court proceedings, including preliminary proceedings and acts carried out in the framework of a criminal investigation, the Member State has: read the Member State referred to In paragraph 1 to take measures and the latter did not take such measures, or they were inadequate, nc ed the Commission and the Member State referred to In paragraph 1 of its intention to t Directive 206/123 aeectling to recital 22 of Directive 2006/123, ‘transport services, including urban transport, taxis and ambulances 2§ well as port services, should be excluded from the scope of this Directive’. Se ete )tal of Directive 2006/123 provides thatthe directive does not apply to services In the Feld of transport, indoding ton seevices, faling within the scope of Title V of Part Three ofthe EC Treaty, which s now Tile Vi of Part fake such measures.” f, headed ‘Freedom of establishment for ‘Three of the FEU Treaty. ‘Under Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/123, which falls under Chapter 111 thereot providers’: Providers es shall not make access to a service activity or the exercise thereof subject to an authorisation scheme Unless the following conditions are satisfied: the authorisation scheme does not discriminate against the provider in question: son relating to the public interest; seo se an a posteri the need for an authorisation scheme Is justified by an overriding rea: the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive inspection would take place too late to be genuinely effective.’ ies Chapter IV of the directive, headed "Free movement of services’ Article 16 lays down the pr service providers to provide services In a Member State other than that In which they are ‘establishe: Spanish law hntpscute, europe. euljuris/documentidocumentjtjsession measure, in particular becaus rocedures enabling Jd=9ea720c0deA3=b3"bsbaca4AdebOdHeS30006 10000 oa4KaxiLeqb40RchOSanyNax 26zan0%8 4 aoe metropottan ares of Barcelona tax! aarvices are governed enero 3% Souse no 3826 af 16 ly 2008 ond BOE’ Ho 189 of 8 Av ‘ax (Law No 19/2003 on taxi sere) oy 20 atm on tn sare the matropaltan sen area) of? way 20a ees ierrnottana del Ten (°sPineenttat matropaitane de Transport se Barone (Governing Boma othe Trae ihe conectnt bay or the metropolitan area of Borcelane, Spain) (Governing Board of the Transport Urner article 4 of tha 1M: _Lnder Arte elon of urban tax! services is subject tothe prior grant of @ Epic Intended to carry out that activity Dror grant of a licence entiting the cence holder for each venice iotenes for the provision of urban tax! services are i 7 are territory where the activity shall be carried out, issued by the town halls or the competent local authorities in {he terre provision of interurban taxi services is subject to the prior gra Sener ee of teria gvernnent nn Tar we ceo eaoreaon wate Fe gone rare Fe put he man Proceedings andthe eaten ted eden (on net zion, Spain) seeking 9 eciaation fom that cour 1 de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial Ge tgisation in force and amount to misleading practices and acts of unfair yn son er at Uber Systems Spain should be ordered to cease its unfair conduct A ester dirtier Phe Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial sean esanen! g ater these ae tie aber ran Spain ‘and related companies (together, ‘Uber’) can be cf a una rats na Se eo a whee oro er ees De Bercetane (Commer Court No 2, Seeing conser pees eae Serine wet’ te sos samira autora TO a oe yt set see omnes Pron by ra company are Oe reseed a Panes see sone maybe record deere one prove sabe of afar 0 = a eT ee cpr soa spiaton. ee ciel perce a re sto aoe Fore met a a Pps Arie HEN Ce 28 al pena arg aon heresy ween rate ty cared ft (Ue each eee he ents sors ur ste en), aes ea ee er me ag ero ri es i ne ey tn ee are) Cee apc era 20a can aa 9 en a a Pi nonce et a npg ese © ee src, an scum ne esta ree or Graces 004 ars 02D vgs gn nS ust ove cg oh Se src movie (Oe SYR, ed Sane 609 ee ans Sana ob i a kr Sra re hee Bretive 1/1, pay Mice 90 rycen mi ee ay atonal ano, pena Mase Sy uy eave aon, Tas FY AY ieenees,autrorsatons 2 oof eetom of ean” If it is confirmed that Directive [2000/31] is applicable to the service provided by [Uber ‘systems Spain], are restfctions mone Member State regarding the freedom to provide the electronic intermediary service from another restore one emi ine etd ea wm uray 4 a ae a Perey ter ah a ners ee roar ON” inion eh ren Se todas fom ae 20) FONE accordance with Article 3(4) thereof?” The jurisdiction of the Court (CURIA Dowamante ) fax... 6 hitpstoura suey psec ero 210A MORES OY esaKaxiLebghb40RchOSraxrzors ve dé CURIA - Documents in 1 at clams thatthe legal clsaiistion of thw service provided by Uber does n Lite To™ air Minaton requires. ction on atues ch fact. In those ercumstancas, meee oe et Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred. according to Elite Taxi, the Du mas 0 ue gnould be recalled thet the refering COUP Nas clay stated, i aha eRe Questions concern soley the legal ciasiention ofthe service at Issue and rot 8 ndings eecrm seers acts of the dispute in the main proceedings. The classification under EU law of facts established by thot oot of te tac uever, tne Interpretation of EU law for which, In the context of the procedure ai down sare ser iret court of Dustice hes Justin (see, to that elect, judgment of 3 December 2015, Bani Mus Bar, Fey A eure 2015:794, paragraph SL and 52} Bani Pius. Bank, ‘The Court therefore has jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred. Gasideration of the questions referred The Spantsh, Greek, Netherlands, Polish and Finnish Governments, the Eur ission 2 are ean lhe was Bar oes lg Garona i hasdteiaay sreaoe Serna both Ge aptrtie ood iSislation and the nature of the activities at issue in the main proceedings. "1 onions Pisitot regard, It should be recalled that the Court may refuse to give a ruling on a question referred by a national canny anere iti quite obvious that the Interpretation of EU aw thot Is sought bears relation tothe actual fate efi nm action rt purpose where the re patient rte ai ds rt efi he uel oF legal material necessary to enable ft to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to i (Ju Ho ee ie oe Counc nes hee base Seale WESNTae prea ‘On that last point, the need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use tothe referring court requires that court, according to Article 94(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to define the factual and Teiistatve context of the questions its asking or at the very least, to explain the factual creumstances on which thse questions are based (see judgment of 10 May 2017, de Lobkowicz, -690/15, EU:C:2017:355, paragraph 28). Furthermore, according to the settled case-iaw ofthe Court, the information provided in orders for reference not only crabiee the Court to give useful answers but also serves to ensure that the governments of the Member States and seekSErevestea persons are given an opportunity to submit observations In accordance with Article 23 of the Statute caret teu of Dustice of the European Union. Its for the Court to ensure that that opportunity is safeguerded, given Coe vse acticle 23, only the orders for reference are notified tothe interested parties, accompanied by a transation tat unde ecguage of Zach Member stte, but excluding any case file that may be sent to the Court by the national wore Guuoment of 4 May 2016, Pilbox 38, €/477/14, EU:C:2016:324, paragraph 26 and the case-iow cited) ea inl teont case, it must be noted thatthe order for reference, while brief In its reference tothe relevant national ae pee neless serves to identify those that may apply tothe provision ofthe service at issue in the main ares trom whieh ft would follow tata icence or pror administrative authorisation is required for that purpose. ceedings, or hiring court's description of the service provided by Uber, the content of whichis set out in paragraph 16 above, is sufficiently precise argaranh 16 above. article Sa(e ofthe Rules of Procedure, the referring cour sets out precisely the reasons for tc unvertainty 2s to the interpretation of EU law. Unceta e e gld thatthe order for reference contains the factual and legal material necessary to enable Conseauentiy, I rust PP Jnower to the referring court and to enable Interested persons usefully to take 2 poston on the Court to ove 2 oso the Court, in accordance with the cas-law referred to in paragraph 25 above ne questions referred to te Covrgases ts doubts as to whether Article 56 TFEU, inter ala is applicable to te present cone Pal over rat tne meter in the main proceedings i allegedly 2 purely internal mater ase, on the ground tha tre order for reference, In patcula te information refered on paragraph 14 sus iomever it's apparent fom aie before the Cour, tet the sevice at ssue Inthe main proceedings i¢ Proves and the othe dona operates from another Member State, namely the Kingdom ofthe Netherands hrough 2 company tat oPerrequest fora preliminary ruling must be held tobe admissible. ‘Substance By its frst and second questions, which should be considered together, the "verte court asks, in essence, whether pete Teeu, coad together with Article 58(1) TFEU, as well as Article 2(2)(d) of Directs 2006/123 and article 12) Ar Directive 96/34, to which Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31 refers, must Pe Interpreted as meaning thet 27 ote eee auch as that at issue inthe main proceedings, the purpose of which © connect, by means of 2 erinnone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using Wer Oo) venice with peraons ne a) Seen arrloummeys, isto be classified as a ‘service in the fled of transpors Weis the meaning of Nee 9) woe tneretore, excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31 nether, on the contrary, the service is covered by Article 56 TFEU, Directv 2006/123 and DrecIVE 2000 yer Tetthot regard, ft shouid be noted that an intermediation service consisi'g of connecting 2, nar e e using his or ner own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urbon Jey in Dine, es froma transport service consisting of the physical act of moving persons & goods rom On en es oF ro eanile Tt should be added that each of those services, taken separately. 6° be inked to re provisions of the FEU Treaty on the freedom to provide services; cantempiated by te rete formation rrecordingly, an intermediation service that enables the transfer, bY Mean fa smartenone 2 eee ho il Y concerning the booking of a transport service between the passendi® and the non. Profssiatin as an information ser the transportation using his or her own vehicle, meets, In priniPle the crl ° vrg-enroacsnisssnoetonoasests tn etn cORAISINNS 46 ntpieuta europa eujuris/document¥documentjsfjsess292018 my CURIA « Documents asa gee, mt a esate cee ge tt Ae 0) of reve 200/31, ht snares ter reneraion a Stance, by aleron means anda ha notre piace maT gy contrast, non-public Urban transport services, auch must be neat, eciPlent of services paragraph 49). to observe, hoi that . * his or her own vehicle with & person who wishes to make an urban journey, " tonal: rhver using et eestor ovina an Soa ores an eee the main proceedings and whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to aces ‘offer jin order to make an urban journey. ba Persor ho wish to accept that offer In that regard, it follows from the information before the Court that the intermediati ce Si te armada aren prod by Ube based on the selection of non-professional drivers using thelr own vehicle, to: whom the comer eevee: oa application without which (i) those drivers would not be led to provide transport services and (ii) persons who wish to Fie ninlSois ervca raat hs argo ming Hn gt utr an ern seri Vrs el caliente Cribs esis Gas Saceangh mesa be case ae sees ean ee Saree Ae Tel of Brcci SEa ae her ee Nn ce NO ae as Sens he Meee ee aan Tat He ee! ate win ie Bee or eeet Oe Eitan Coe tak ee co ee a aaa das ant Gia wean, Cue Toscan rerapragn 48 an 46, on NE ea aooauart wih Gneepand os han iy, aresaTes7, Petre sriceaatoe masa ee 50 a a ee pn Be be of Oe ccive fanaa poke roe cle 2216) ert on sence at iss inthe maln proceedings tobe cased 259 service nthe ft _Mareover nce te inermediton seit a eee reasons prone saree gener i by ace 380) TFEU, a speci provision according to wnch Testa rt ec gman of 22 Seabe 201, Yalow Ca Verkehrsbetrieb, C°338/09, EU:C:2010:814, paragraph 29 and the case-ewcted). ca eatia degances must be achieved, scr nea cen a the principle governing freedom 090 scons Treaty, by implementing the common transport Paley Quagrent of 22 December 2010, Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetrieb, af; servic inherer linked to those ere, should pe note na an a Ae paces as ot sen fx foie acoton by serves, Su 8 he ee on Unto ot comon res oF oe esses Bs intermediation services such as that at issue in the main proceedings are to be provided in conto Tae es ane ens x tt ee Emami A) TFEU, as well as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 and Article 1(2) of Directive TAI rect refer be interpret rr i issue in the diation service such as that at Issue in th Directive 2000/31 refers, must be interpreted as meaniog Tet Tt rnone appication and for remuneration jn proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by m to edad mam ecg pr ich ae a ss oy sat ue ee ap non-proessional divers using thelr own venice Metering, must be Gauied 2 service he Gad of ses, within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such @ service must ve i! pirecve 2006/123 ond Drecve 2000/31 sade an onset the TREY, Dretve 2006/23 ar ie rat ond second question, is nat necssan 1 owes OS eg, and fourth questions, which were referred on the ‘assumption that Directive Costs htt:curta.europa.eulurs/documentidocument|stjsessionid-Gea7624 passengers are transported by non- 56 sodcksanstbebaca4Ssobodeos2096 0630 =34Kax cSaMD4ORSNOSH/\edae (CURIA. Documenta ) Since these proceedings are, for the ysties to the m court, the decision on costs Is @ than the costs of those parties, On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: Article 56 TFEU, read together with Article BB(1) TFEU, as wall as Article 2(2)(4) of Directive 2006/123/8C of ‘the European Parilament and of the Council of 12 December 2000 4 parca eee internal market, and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Couseit ey 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the Meld of techies) senna ‘and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/ce oy wee European Parliament and of Council of 20 July 1998, to which Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31 /€¢ of tne European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain le services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce) refers, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service such as that at issue in the rain proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urven journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be Classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31. [Signatures] Proceedings, a step in the acuon pending afore the ror that court. Coat incurred in submitting bwerrann’ toe Coe el * Language of the case: Spanish rncssab9610a3b e34KaxiLc3qMDAORcNaSaxWNax... 6 19dab00 ntp:ifeuria.europa.eufuris/documentidocumentjst}sessionki-Gea7d2dc30de4Sab3 1D6bacM4Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 136/17 Luxembourg, 20 December 2017 Judgment in Case C-434/15 Press and infomation Asoclacién Profesional Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL ‘The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport Member States can therefore regulate the conditions for providing that service ‘The electronic platform Uber provides, by means of a smartphone application, a paid service consisting of connecting non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys. In 2014, a professional taxi drivers’ association in Barcelona (Spain) brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 3, Barcelona, Spain) seeking 2 declaration from that court that the activities of Uber Systems Spain, a company related to Uber Technologies (together ‘Uber’), amount to misleading practices and acts of unfair competition Indeed, neither Uber Systems Spain, nor the non-professional drivers of the vehicles concerned, have the licences and authorisations required under the Regulation on taxi services in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. In order to determine whether the practices of Uber can be classified as unfair practices that infringe the Spanish rules on competition, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona considers it necessary to ascertain whether or not Uber requires prior ‘administrative authorisation. To that end, the court considers that it should be determined whether the services provided by Uber are to be regarded as transport services, information society services or a combination of both. Indeed, whether or not prior administrative authorisation may be required depends on the classification adopted. In particular, if the service at issue were covered by the directive on services in the internal market’ or the directive on electronic commerce”, Uber's practices could not be regarded as unfair practices. In today's judgment, the Court declares that an intermediation service such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a fransport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport within the meaning of EU law. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of the freedom to provide services in general as well as the directive on services in the internal market and the directive on electronic commerce. States to regulate the It follows that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member coreiitions under which such services are to be provided In conformity with the general rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. eves inthe teal Tprecive 2008/1230 of the European Parliament and of he Counc of 12 December 2006 on serves nie mrarket (OJ L 376, p. 36) on certain legal aspects of Mefeee Soonsee of te Euopean Paiamant an of te Counc of ue Fm 8 Ss nga asec of inormatien cooely senices, in parulareleevonte commerce, the Internal Mat neon reat) ielomaton Sec Series aie te dnon of riomatn sere Saves Die ne (0 2006 ice: Of ine European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying Orne ry senices Brace S94 of te Capea acl stay ord retort eo a da (OJ 1998 L 204, p.37), as amended by Directive '9B/48/EC of the European Parliamer 1898 (0d 1888..217, p18), womw curia.europa.eThe Court takes the view, first of all that the service provided by Uber is more than an Intermediation service consisting of connecting, by meane of a smartphone appltctont arian professional driver using hs or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make on un Joumey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider ofthat intermediation service simultaneously can Urban transport services, which it tenders accessible, in particular, trough software ai org whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish 40 accept that eer onder to| make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard thatthe application proved by Uter is inaispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey: & also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the aroert provide their service. Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an Integral part of an overall service whose main component Is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the field of transport’. ‘The Court states that, consequently, the directive on electronic commerce does not apply to that service, which is also excluded from the scope of the directive on services in the internal market For the same reason, the service in question is covered not by the freedom to provide services in general but by the common transport policy. However, non-public urban transport services and services that are inherently linked to those services, such as the intermediation service provided by Uber, has not given rise to the adoption of measures based on that policy. reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court's decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tbunals before which a similar issue is raised Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. The fulltext of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery. Press contact: Holly Gallagher ® (+352) 4309 3355 Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from "Europe by Satellite" @ (+32) 2 2964106 www curia.europa.eu