EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-42/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — FS v Wallonische Region

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0042

62020CN0042

January 28, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

18.1.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/12

(Case C-42/20)

(2021/C 19/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendant: Wallonische Region

Questions referred

1.Does national legislation which, as applied by the authorities, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided occasionally and for short periods of time to a citizen resident in Belgium by a citizen established in a different Member State contingent upon the citizen resident in Belgium carrying in the vehicle the private attestation of permission to use the vehicle, that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles, conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of movement, Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers), Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and Article 56 TFEU (freedom to provide services)?

2.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 a document issued by the foreign owner of the vehicle granting permission to use the vehicle for a limited and specified period of time 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?

By order of 10 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State according to which a person residing in that Member State may rely on a derogation from the requirement to register vehicles laid down in that Member State, in respect of a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to that person free of charge, for short periods of time, by the owner of that vehicle who resides in that other Member State, only where the documents attesting that the person concerned fulfils the conditions for that derogation are carried in the vehicle at all times, with no possibility of providing those documents subsequently.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia