Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017

Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, SL

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 58(1) TFEU — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 2000/31/EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Intermediation service 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 — Requirement for authorisation

Case C-434/15


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
09/02/2018 Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2017:981
20/12/2017 Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2017:981
20/12/2017 Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2017:364
11/05/2017 Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
16/10/2015 Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A23 : paragraph 25
  • TFEU, Article 56 : paragraphs 1, 18, 30, 33, 44, 45, 48
  • TFEU, Article 58 -P1 : paragraphs 33, 44, 48
  • TFEU, Article 90 : paragraph 45
  • TFEU, Article 91 -P1 : paragraph 46
  • TFEU, Article 267 : paragraph 20
  • Directive 98/34 : paragraph 15
  • Directive 98/34 -A01 : paragraph 1
  • Directive 98/34 -A01PT2 : paragraphs 3, 18, 33, 35, 40, 48
  • Directive 2000/31 : paragraphs 42, 49
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LA : paragraphs 5, 33, 35, 40, 48
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03 : paragraph 1
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P2 : paragraphs 6, 18
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P4 : paragraphs 6, 18
  • Directive 2006/123 : paragraphs 15, 18, 49
  • Directive 2006/123 -A02 : paragraph 1
  • Directive 2006/123 -A02P2LD : paragraphs 8, 18, 33, 36, 40, 41, 43, 48
  • Directive 2006/123 -A09 : paragraphs 1, 18
  • Directive 2006/123 -A09P1 : paragraph 9
  • Directive 2006/123 -A16 : paragraph 10
  • Directive 2006/123 -C21 : paragraphs 7, 36
  • Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A94LA : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A94LB : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A94LC : paragraph 28
  • Regulation 1535/2015 -A10 : paragraph 4
  • Regulation 1535/2015 -A11 : paragraph 4
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -338/09 -N29 : paragraph 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -338/09 -N30 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/14 -N45 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/14 -N46 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -312/14 -N51 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -312/14 -N52 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -340/14 -N49 : paragraph 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -477/14 -N26 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -690/15 -N28 : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Opinion 2/15 -N61 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/16 -N25 : paragraph 23

Operative part

  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 56
  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 58 -P1
  • Interprets : Directive 98/48
  • Interprets : Directive 98/34 -A01PT2
  • Interprets : Directive 2000/31
  • Interprets : Directive 2006/123
  • Interprets : Directive 2006/123 -A02P2LD

Opinion

  • TFEU : points 22, 23
  • TFEU, Article 56 : point 20
  • TFEU, Article 58 -P1 : points 25, 69, 70, 72, 94
  • TFEU, Article 90 : point 25
  • TFEU, Article 91 -P1LB : point 69
  • Directive 98/34 -A01PT2 : points 3, 20, 24, 26, 29, 72, 75, 94
  • Directive 98/34 -A01PT2L2T2 : point 29
  • Directive 2000/31 : points 22, 24, 28, 31, 32, 37, 65, 78, 85, 86, 88, 92, 93
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LA : points 4, 26, 29, 72, 94
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LH : points 4, 30
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LHL1T1 : point 80
  • Directive 2000/31 -A02LHL2T3 : points 80, 87
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P1 : points 5, 65
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P2 : points 5, 20, 30, 65, 79, 81, 87, 90
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P4 : points 5, 20, 79, 82, 90
  • Directive 2000/31 -A03P4LAL3 : point 84
  • Directive 2000/31 -C18 : points 30, 87
  • Directive 2006/123 : points 22, 23, 85, 93
  • Directive 2006/123 -A02P2LD : points 6, 20, 25, 67, 70, 72, 91, 94
  • Directive 2006/123 -A03P1 : points 7, 92
  • Directive 2006/123 -C21 : point 68
  • Directive 2015/1535 -A01P1LB : point 3
  • Directive 2015/1535 -A11 : point 3
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52016DC0356 : point 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/09 -N22 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/09 -N28 : point 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/09 -N29 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/09 -N30 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -74/14 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N27 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -74/14 -N28 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/14 : point 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/14 : point 62


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 07/08/2015

Date of the Opinion

  • 11/05/2017

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

20/12/2017


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 72 from 26.02.2018, p.2

Application: OJ C 363 from 03.11.2015, p.21

Name of the parties

Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Ahtik, Meta ; Hojnik, Janja: Digitalna ekonomija: bitcoin, internet stvari in Uber, Podjetje in delo 2017 nº 6-7 p.1089-1102 (SL)
  2. Simon, Perrine: Uber saisi par le droit du marché intérieur, Revue des affaires européennes 2017 p.521-532 (FR)
  3. Carta, Cinzia: Uber face à la compétition économique et au respect des règles de droit, Revue des affaires européennes 2017 p.757-763 (FR)
  4. Trillo Párraga, Francisco: Uber ¿Sociedad de la información o prestadora de servicios de transporte? Comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Gran Sala), de 20 de diciembre de 2017, Revista de derecho social 2017 nº 80 p.127-138 (ES)
  5. Renders, David ; De Valkeneer, Delphine: Arrêt " Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi " : Uber, un service de transport freiné dans sa course ?, Journal de droit européen 2018 nº 246 p.47-48 (FR)
  6. Bensoussan-Brulé, Virginie ; Martinez, Baptiste: Uber: qualification de service dans le domaine des transports, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2018 nº 145 p.17-21 (FR)
  7. Hacker, Philipp: UberPop, UberBlack, and the Regulation of Digital Platforms after the Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi Judgment of the CJEU, European Review of Contract Law 2018 Vol. 14 p.80-96 (EN)
  8. Devaux, Caroline: Uber, une plateforme numérique pas comme les autres : commentaire de l'arrêt Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi contre Uber Systems Spain, 20 décembre 2017, aff. C-434/15, L'Observateur de Bruxelles 2018 p.59-63 (FR)
  9. Strowel, Alain: Arrêts Uber : stop aux plateformes, Journal de droit européen 2018 nº 249 p.165 (FR)
  10. König, Carsten: Verfahrensrecht: Beförderungstätigkeit von Uber Popstrafrechtliche Sanktionen der Mitgliedstaaten ohne Mitteilung an EU möglich, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2018 p.380-381 (DE)
  11. Wimmer, Norbert: "Uber" regulierung in Europa ? - Anmerkungen zu EuGH C-434/15 (Uber Spain), Computer und Recht 2018 p.239-245 (DE)
  12. Tans, S.: Onder de motorkap van Uber blijkt een taxi te zitten; gevolgen van de Europeesrechtelijke kwalificatie van Uber als transportdienstverlener, S.E.W. : Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 2018 p.230-233 (NL)
  13. Botman, M.R.: Uber: online dienst of vervoersbedrijf?, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2018 p.21-27 (NL)
  14. Schaub, Martien Y.: Why Uber is an information society service, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 2018 p.109-115 (EN)
  15. Palmieri, Alessandro: Uber Pop: fine delle corse in (mezza) Europa?, Il Foro italiano 2018 IV Col.95-99 (IT)
  16. Dommering, E.J.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2018 Afl.40 p.5615-5617 (NL)
  17. Skubic, Zoran: Uber je po pravu Unije "navadna" taksi služba, Pravna praksa 2018 nº 1 p.28-29 (SL)
  18. Vlačič, Patrick: Ali je Uber res super?, Pravna praksa 2018 nº 6 p.6-8 (SL)
  19. Hatzopoulos, Vassilis: La première prise de position de la Cour en matière d'économie collaborative, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2018 p.273-283 (FR)
  20. Turci, Matteo: «Sulla natura dei servizi offerti dalle piattaforme digitali: il caso Uber», La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata 2018 I p.1088-1093 (IT)
  21. Diverio, Davide: Se Uberpop è un servizio di trasporto un via libera (condizionato) alla sua regolamentazione da parte degli Stati membri, Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro 2018 II p.410-418 (IT)
  22. Finck, Michèle: Distinguishing internet platforms from transport services: Elite Taxi v. Uber Spain, Common Market Law Review 2018 Vol. 55 nº 5 p.1619-1639 (EN)
  23. Valgaeren, Erik ; Michielsen, Carolien: Platform, niet uniform ?, Revue de droit commercial belge 2018 N°8 p.909-912 (NL)
  24. Hojnik, Janja: Sodelovalno gospodarstvo in delitvena ekonomija: pojmi in potreba po evropskem pristopu, Podjetje in delo 2018 nº 6-7 p.965-977 (SL)
  25. Bagińska, Ewa ; Majkowska-Szulc, Sylwia: Granice prawne „uberyzacji” – glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 20.12.2017 r., C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi przeciwko Uber Systems Spain SL, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2018 Vol. 5 p.30-36 (PL)
  26. Vaira, Davide: Il caso Uber nel mercato unico digitale, La Comunità internazionale 2018 p.429-443 (IT)
  27. Correia, Vincent: Cour de justice, gde ch., 20 décembre 2017, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi, aff. C‑434/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:981, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2017, Bruylant, Bruxelles. Décisions et commentaires 2018, p. 930-941 (FR)
  28. Daniel, Élise: Prestation de services - Service d'intermédiation, Europe 2018, Février nº 2, Comm. 65 (FR)
  29. Hatzopoulos, Vassilis: After Uber Spain : The EU's Approach on the Sharing Economy in Need of Review ?, European Law Review 2019 Vol.44 N°1 p.88-98 (EN)
  30. Šilec, Sašo: Obligacijskopravna vprašanja prevoza z Uberjem, Podjetje in delo 2019 nº XLV p.306-347 (SL)
  31. Rottmann, Johannes ; Göhsl, Jan-Frederick: Zentrale Preissetzung auf Transaktionsplattformen der Sharing Economy - Der Fall Uber, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 2019 N°7/8 p.348-355 (DE)
  32. Hatzopoulos, Vassilis: After Uber Spain : The EU's Approach on the Sharing Economy in Need of Review?, European Current Law 2019 Part 5 nº 413-422 (EN)
  33. Grozdanovski, Ljupcho: Les services fournis par les plateformes numériques : quelle qualification juridique pour quels enjeux ?, Journal des tribunaux 2020 p. 449-455 (FR)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 3 de Barcelona - Spain

Subject-matter

  • Freedom of establishment
  • Freedom to provide services
  • Internal market - Principles
  • Approximation of laws
  • Consumer protection

Provisions of national law referred to

Ley 3/1991, de 10 de enero, de Competencia Desleal, arts. 4, 5, 32, paragraphe 1, points 1 et 2

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Šváby

Advocate General

Szpunar

Language(s) of the Case

  • Spanish

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French