17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/26

(Case C-374/18)

(2018/C 328/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V.

Defendant: Deutsche Post AG

Questions referred

1.Is Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that that provision permits exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 only in the event that a vehicle of a universal service provider within the meaning of Article 2(13) of Directive 97/67/EC (2) transports solely and exclusively items forming part of the universal service, in accordance with Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, or are exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 also permissible under that provision in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry items that do not come under the universal service?

2.If the answer to Question 1 is that exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 are also permissible in the case where the vehicles concerned, in addition to transporting items forming part of the universal service, also carry other items that do not come under the universal service:

a)In that event, what proportion must the share of items which a vehicle carries as part of the universal service represent as a minimum?

b)In that event, what proportion may the share of items which do not come under the universal service and which the vehicle carries at the same time as those forming part of the universal service represent as a maximum?

c)How is such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), to be determined in each case?

d)Must such a proportion, as described in points a) and b), be defined for each individual journey performed by the vehicle concerned or is an average proportion, based on all the journeys performed by the vehicle in question, sufficient?

3.Is a national provision of an EU State on driving times and rest periods for vehicles and combinations of vehicles for the carriage of goods with a maximum permissible mass in excess of 2,81 [tonnes] and not exceeding 3,51 [tonnes], which reproduces verbatim the provisions of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, to be interpreted exclusively on the basis of EU law?

b)Can a national court, notwithstanding the verbatim reproduction of EU law, apply different criteria to interpret the provisions reproduced from EU law?

4.Is an item’s classification as an item forming part of the universal service in accordance with Directive 97/67/EC precluded where, in connection with that item, add-on services such as:

—collection (without a time slot);

—collection (with a time slot);

—minimum age check;

—cash on delivery;

—postage payment by recipient up to 31,5 kg;

—redirection service;

—sender’s instructions;

—preferred delivery day;

—preferred delivery time;

are offered?

* Language of the case: German.

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).