18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/14

Action brought on 26 July 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-482/23)

(2023/C 329/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Messina and C. Vang, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

—

Declare that, by failing to allow cabotage operations by bus and coach in connection with occasional services unless the operation takes place within a period of seven consecutive days in a calendar month, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to comply with its obligations under Article15(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, ( 1 ) and

—

order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 1 November 2019, Denmark has had an administrative practice under which non-Danish carriers may only undertake cabotage operations by bus or coach in connection with occasional services in Denmark if the operations take place within ‘seven consecutive days in a calendar month’. Thus, under the Danish practice, a non-Danish carrier may not undertake two cabotage operations by bus or coach in Denmark in the course of a calendar month if there is more than one week between the operations.

The Commission takes the view that Denmark, in applying the administrative practice contrary to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, restricts carriers’ opportunities to undertake cabotage operations by coach and bus in Denmark. The Commission submits in that connection inter alia that the condition laid down in Article 2(7), to the effect that the operations must be occasional in nature, must be interpreted in the light of the Court’s case-law on the temporary nature of services. This means that a specific assessment must be made of whether the individual undertaking’s activity is temporary in nature. That assessment may not be replaced by a rule under which two operations within the same month are automatically deemed to be unlawful if there are more than seven days between the two operations.

( 1 ) OJ 2009 L 300, p. 88 .