Language of document :

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 14 January 2021 – IO v Wallonische Region

(Case C-23/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Walloon Region

Questions referred

Does national legislation which, as applied by the Walloon Region, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided to a manager (or freelancer) who is resident in Belgium by an undertaking (with or without legal personality) established in an EU Member State other than Belgium contingent upon that manager (or freelancer) carrying in the vehicle an attestation of the undertaking (with or without legal personality) or evidence of engagement (that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001), conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Article 49 (freedom of establishment) and Article 56 (freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)?

2.    Is the requirement that, in order to be able to use a company vehicle registered abroad and made available to him or her, a partner and manager living in Belgium must receive a salary or income from the undertaking, consistent with the relevant provisions of EU law and in particular Articles 49 (freedom of establishment) and 56 (freedom of movement of services) TFEU?

3.    Is national legislation, as described above and applied by the Walloon Region, justified by requirements of public security or other protective measures and is compliance with the national legislation, interpreted as meaning that both evidence of engagement and an attestation of the provision of the vehicle must be carried in the vehicle, necessary in order to attain the objective pursued or could the objective have been attained by other, less strict and formalistic means?