Earlier this week the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18 Cali Apartments concerning the requirements imposed on Airbnb hosts by the French authorities. The judgment largely follows the opinion of Advocate General Bobek, on which we reported several months ago. Like the AG, the Court seems ready to accept a variety of restrictions, including the most controversial "offset requirement", as compatible with EU law - with certain caveats. The judgment is both detailed and technical, and comes out in favour of evidence-based decision-making, which may pose a challenge to the national courts. Meanwhile, legislative works on the so-called Digital Services Act are ongoing, in which the sharing of platform data with the local authorities is one of the contentious topics.
Background of the case
The case revolves around a number of restrictions imposed by the French law on the property owners wishing to let apartments for short periods to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there (hereafter simply 'tourists'). Most notably, in municipalities with more than 200 000 inhabitants, in order to change the use of residential premises to the one set out above, prior authorisation is required. Detailed conditions for obtaining such an authorisation are laid down at the local level and may include offset requirements in the form of a conversion of non-residential premises into housing. The appellants, who were sanctioned for letting their Parisian properties to tourists in violation of national and local rules, argued that the relevant requirements were contrary to Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market.
Judgment of the Court
Scope of Directive 2006/123 and the notion of 'authorisation schemes'
Before moving to the key questions concerning the compatibility of contested national rules with the harmonised liberalisation framework, the Court first analysed whether they are subject to the Services Directive at all and if so, to which of its provisions. This part of the judgment is rather brief and essentially confirms the act's broad scope and recalls the distinction between authorisations and other requirements.
- Not surprisingly, according to the Court, an activity consisting in the repeated short-term letting, for remuneration, of furnished accommodation to tourists is covered by the concept of 'service' within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123 (paras. 32-34).
- The Court further found that national norms targeting such an activity are not excluded from the scope of the Services Directive; in particular, they do not fall under the "rules concerning the development or use of land [and] town and country planning" referred to in recital 9 of Directive 2006/123 (see paras. 40-44).
- Finally, the Court confirmed that legislation requiring persons wishing to provide services mentioned above to obtain a formal decision from a competent
authority, enabling them to access and to exercise service activity, constitutes an 'authorisation scheme' within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Directive 2006/123 (paras. 51-52).
As for the case for establishing an authorisation scheme in the first place, the Court recognized that the objective of "dealing with the worsening conditions for access to housing and the exacerbation of tensions on the property markets [...] to protect owners and tenants, and to increase the supply of housing while maintaining balanced land use" constitutes an overriding reason relating to the public interest referred to in Article 9(1)(b) of the Services Directive (paras. 65-68). The Court further found that a scheme of ex ante authorisations, such as the one considered in the main proceedings, could be both suitable and proportionate to the objective pursued. In reaching this conclusion, the Court underlined the importance of economic data showing the gravity of the problem in the areas covered by relevant legislation (cf. paras. 69, 73).
A similar reasoning can be observed in the subsequent part of the judgment, concerned with the specific criteria for granting authorisations. To recall, pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Services Directive, authorisation schemes shall be based on criteria which preclude the competent authorities from exercising their power of assessment in an arbitrary manner. Paragraph 2 states, among others, that the criteria shall be non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest and proportionate to that public interest objective, not unlike in the previously discussed Article 9. In this more specific context, however, the role of "studies and other objective analyses" of the local conditions appears to be considered even more important (cf. para. 88). Particular attention is drawn to the proportionality of the offset requirement as a condition of relevant authorisation schemes. Overall, in the case at issue, the Court considered such requirement to be potentially in line with the Services Directive, without, however, giving national authorities a carte blanche in this regard.
- Note, among others, the importance attached by the Court to the fact that the local authorities, chosing to impose an offset requirement in the case at issue, were supposedly required to ensure that, firstly, the requirement was strictly relevant to the specific situation of individual neighbourhoods or districts and that, secondly, the same was true for required quantum of the offsetting (e.g. para. 83).
- Another aspect highlighted in the judgment is the compatibility of the offset requirement with the exercise of services activities [of letting apartments to tourists], which appears to be somewhat intransparent way of saying that conditions of the scheme should not discourage such activities entirely (paras. 91-94).
The above suggests that establishing compliance of the offset requirements with the principle of proportionality in the Services Directive is all but black-and-white and requires considerable expertise on the part of national courts.
Other criteria for granting authorisations (Article 10 cont'd)
The last part of the judgment engages with the remaining conditions laid down in Article 10(2), namely unambiguity, objectivity, prior publicity, transparency and accessibility. Also in this respect, the Court provides a number of reference points, which national courts use to uphold authorisation schemes before them, without, again, providing them with unlimited discretion. It is highlighted, among others, that:
- the fact that relevant terms (such as 'repeated short-term letting of furnished accommodation to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there') are not defined using numeric thresholds does not, in itself, affect the requirements of clarity, non-ambiguity and objectivity (para. 98) → the terms should nonetheless be clarified in a way that prevents doubt as to the scope of the conditions and obligations, so that the concepts are not applied arbitrarily (para. 99-100);
- the fact the delegation of the power from the national to the local level is focused on the objectives which the local authorities must take into consideration cannot, in principle, lead to a finding that those conditions are insufficiently clear and objective → in so far as reference is also made to the objective factors on the basis of which the granting conditions are to be determined (paras. 102-103);
- the fact that the conditions for granting authorisations and the quantum of the offsets are to be determined by the municipal councils of individual municipalities does not, in itself, affect the transparency, accessibility and prior publicity requirements → what matters is rather whether all owners wishing to let furnished accommodation to tourists are in a position to familiarise themselves with the conditions for granting authorisations, before committing to activities in question. More specifically, the Court found that the publication of the minutes of municipal council meetings in the town hall and on a website is sufficient to meet the prior publicity, transparency and accessibility requirements → in so far as it effectively enables any interested person to be informed immediately of the existence of legislation likely to affect access to, or the exercise of, the activity concerned (paras. 104-107).
Concluding thought
Overall, even though the judgment has reportedly been welcomed by the advocates of a stronger grip on platform-based activities, including by the mayor of Paris, it requires national courts to carry out a complex assessment of multiple criteria and does not give Member States an unconditional license to regulate services provided via platforms. The question remains: will national courts rise to the challenge?
