- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CB0526
62015CB0526
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 63/6
(Case C-526/15) (<a id="ntc1-C_2017063EN.01000601-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2017063EN.01000601-E0001"> (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)</a>
((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
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.
(<a id="ntr1-C_2017063EN.01000601-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2017063EN.01000601-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> <a href="./../../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2015:429:TOC">OJ C 429, 21.12.2015</a>.)