- 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-316/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0316
62015CN0316
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
21.9.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 311/22
(Case C-316/15)
(2015/C 311/27)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.
Defendant: Westminster City Council
Questions referred
Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:
(1)does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?
(2) does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:
(a)evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss,
(b)the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or
(c)any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications (and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?
(1) OJ L 376, p. 36