C-439/25

Provisional text ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 27 January 2026 (*) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Trans-European transport network – Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 – Road transport infrastructure – Article 19(d) – Parking areas – Article 39(2)(c) – Rest areas – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 8a – Information about safe and secure parking areas – National legislation prohibiting the construction of motorway service areas, including secure parking areas, on private land – Article 56 TFEU – Inapplicability – Purely internal situation ) In Case C‑439/25, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Court of Appeal, Timişoara, Romania), made by decision of 10 June 2025, received at the Court on 4 July 2025, in the proceedings OMW Petrom Marketing SRL v Compania Naţională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA, ZR, LN, THE COURT (Eighth Chamber), composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra (Rapporteur) and N. Fenger, Judges, Advocate General: A. Rantos, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, makes the following Order 1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of recital 6, Article 19(d) and Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU (OJ 2013 L 348, p. 1), Article 8a of 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 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 561/2006’), and Article 56 TFEU. 2        The request has been made in proceedings between OMW Petrom Marketing SRL (‘OMW’) and Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA (National company for the administration of road infrastructure, Romania) (‘CNAIR’), as well as ZR and LN, concerning the validity of administrative acts by which CNAIR approved the construction, on private land situated near the A1 motorway in the municipality of Pecica (Romania), of a secure parking area, a fuel station, a fast recharging station for electric cars and an area offering hospitality services with amenities.  Legal framework  European Union law  Primary legislation 3        The first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU provides that restrictions on freedom to provide services within the European Union are prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.  Regulation No 561/2006 4        Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006 provides: ‘1.      The [European] Commission shall ensure that information about safe and secure parking areas is easily accessible to drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road. The Commission shall publish a list of all parking areas that have been certified, in order to provide drivers with adequate: –        intrusion detection and prevention, –        lighting and visibility, –        emergency contact points and procedures, –        gender-friendly sanitary facilities, –        food and beverage purchasing options, –        communications connections, –        power supply. The list of such parking areas shall be made available on a single official website that is regularly updated. … 3.      All parking areas that have been certified may indicate that they are certified in accordance with Union standards and procedures. In accordance with point (c) of Article 39(2) of Regulation [No 1315/2013], Member States are to encourage the creation of parking space for commercial road users. …’  Regulation No 1315/2013 5        Regulation No 1315/2013 was repealed, with effect from 18 July 2024, by Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1153 and (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 (OJ L, 2024/1679). However, given the dates of the events at issue in the main proceedings, it remains applicable ratione temporis to those proceedings. 6        Recital 6 of Regulation No 1315/2013 stated: ‘The trans-European transport network policy has to take into account the evolution of transport policy and infrastructure ownership. Member States are still the principal entity in charge of creating and maintaining transport infrastructure. However, other entities, including private-sector partners, have also become relevant for the implementation of a multimodal trans-European transport network and the related investments, including regional and local authorities, infrastructure managers, concessionaires or port and airport authorities.’ 7        Article 1 of that regulation, which was headed ‘Subject matter’, provided in paragraph 1: ‘This Regulation establishes guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network comprising a dual-layer structure consisting of the comprehensive network and of the core network, the latter being established on the basis of the comprehensive network.’ 8        Article 19 of that regulation, which was headed ‘Priorities for road infrastructure development’, was worded as follows: ‘In the promotion of projects of common interest related to road infrastructure, and in addition to the general priorities set out in Article 10, priority shall be given to the following: … (d)      provision of appropriate parking space for commercial users offering an appropriate level of safety and security; …’ 9        Article 39 of that regulation, which was headed ‘Infrastructure requirements’, provided in paragraph 2: ‘The infrastructure of the core network shall meet all the requirements set out in Chapter II. In addition, the following requirements shall be met by the infrastructure of the core network, without prejudice to paragraph 3: … (c)      for road transport infrastructure: … –        the development of rest areas on motorways approximately every 100 [kilometres (km)] in line with the needs of society, of the market and of the environment, in order inter alia to provide appropriate parking space for commercial road users with an appropriate level of safety and security; …’  Romanian law 10      Article 2(1) to (3) of Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 43/1997, privind regimul juridic al drumurilor (Government Order No 43/1997 on the law concerning roads), of 28 August 1997 (republished in the Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 237 of 29 June 1998), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘OG No 43/1997’), provides: ‘(1)      Roads are part of the national transport system. (2)      Roads are land transport routes specifically designed for the circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. (3)      The following form an integral part of the road system: …, parking and stopping …, service or control areas …’ 11      Article 6(1)(a) of OG No 43/1997 states: ‘(1)      Roads of national interest are State-owned public property and include national roads which ensure connections with the country’s capital, with district capitals, [and] with destinations of national interest, [as well as] connections between those places and with neighbouring countries, and may be classified as: (a)      motorways – high-capacity, high-speed roads, reserved exclusively for the use of motor vehicles, which do not serve adjoining properties, comprising two one-way carriageways separated by a central reservation, with at least two traffic lanes for each direction of traffic as well as emergency stopping lanes, and with grade-separated junctions and restricted access, motor vehicles being permitted to enter or exit only at junctions designed for that purpose’.  The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 12      Between July 2020 and December 2021, CNAIR adopted several acts approving the construction, on two plots of private land belonging to ZR and LN, situated near the A1 motorway in the municipality of Pecica, of service areas including a secure parking area, a fuel station, fast recharging stations for electric cars and an area offering hospitality services with amenities. 13      On 15 December 2021, the mayor of the municipality of Pecica granted building permits for those areas to ZR and LN. 14      On 17 December 2021, ZR and LN sold the land in question to OMW and transferred all the rights arising from the related authorisations to it. Having taken ownership of that land, OMW undertook the construction of the areas referred to above in accordance with the permits issued. 15      In April 2022, CNAIR brought legal proceedings against ZR and LN seeking, first, annulment of the notices, approvals and authorisations which it had issued to them in connection with the construction of those areas, and of all measures adopted on the basis thereof, and, secondly, the restoration of the land to its previous state and condition. OMW sought permission to intervene in those proceedings. 16      By judgment of 3 April 2024, the Tribunalul Arad (Regional Court, Arad, Romania) dismissed CNAIR’s action as unfounded, holding, in essence, that national law permits the construction of rest and parking areas on private land. 17      By judgment of 5 November 2024, the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Court of Appeal, Timişoara, Romania) upheld an appeal by CNAIR and set aside the judgment of 3 April 2024. On the basis of Article 2(1) to (3) and Article 6(1)(a) of OG No 43/1997, it held that motorway service areas, including secure parking areas, are an integral part of the road system of national interest and must, therefore, be built on land in the public ownership of the State. 18      OMW brought an action before that court, which is the referring court and is ruling at final instance, for revision of the judgment of 5 November 2024, submitting that it was contrary to several provisions of Regulations No 561/2006 and No 1315/2013 and to the principle of freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU. 19      As regards the alleged infringement of Regulations No 561/2006 and No 1315/2013, the referring court notes that those regulations do not contain any rule relating to the public or private nature of land on which parking or service areas for the motorway network are to be built. It has doubts, however, as to whether EU law precludes national legislation which prohibits the construction of such areas on private land, and accordingly questions whether Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006 and Article 19(d) and Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation No 1315/2013 must be interpreted as recognising a right to build those areas on such land. 20      That court also observes that recital 6 of Regulation No 1315/2013 does not refer to any rights granted to ‘private sector partners’ in the field of trans-European transport networks. Furthermore, the importance of those partners to the implementation of a multimodal trans-European transport network is not sufficient, in its view, to preclude a Member State from introducing a prohibition on the construction of motorway parking or service areas on private land. 21      As regards the alleged infringement of Article 56 TFEU, the referring court notes that, first, OMW is a Romanian legal person providing its services on Romanian territory and, secondly, the construction and operation of parking and service areas on Romanian territory constitutes a situation that is wholly internal to Romania, particularly since nationals of other Member States who might in future be recipients of the services provided by OMW in those areas would not travel to Romania for the purpose of receiving those services, which are ancillary to road transit. The referring court observes, moreover, that the prohibition on building such areas on private land adjacent to motorways applies without distinction to all operators, irrespective of their nationality or that of the recipients of those services, and that it does not appear that it indirectly favours service providers established in Romania. 22      Having regard, first, to the fact that the judgment to be delivered in the main proceedings will be a final judgment and, secondly, to the fundamental nature of the freedom to provide services in the European Union, the complexity of the field at issue and the existence in EU law of specific rules concerning road transport, the referring court considers it useful to ask the Court about the applicability of Article 56 TFEU to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Romanian service provider intends to provide services ancillary to road transport on Romanian motorways to recipients who may be nationals of other Member States. 23      In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Court of Appeal, Timișoara) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)      Do the provisions of Article 19(d) [and] Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation [No 1315/2013] and the provisions of Article 8a of [Regulation No 561/2006], as well as the [EU] legislation on secure parking and rest areas serving motorways as a whole, preclude national legislation which does not permit the construction of such parking areas on privately owned land? (2)      Do the provisions of [recital 6 of Regulation No 1315/2013] preclude national legislation which does not permit the construction of such parking areas on privately owned land? (3)      Do the provisions of Article 56 TFEU and the [EU] legislation on the freedom to provide services as a whole apply where the applicant for revision … is a service provider of Romanian nationality wishing to provide services connected with road transport on Romanian motorways to recipients who may be nationals of other Member States [of the European Union]? (4)      If the provisions of Article 56 TFEU and the [EU] legislation on the freedom to provide services as a whole are applicable in the present case, does that legislation preclude national legislation which does not permit the construction of service areas or the provision of such services – secure parking areas serving motorways – on privately owned land?’  Examination of the questions referred 24      Under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order, in particular where the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where it admits of no reasonable doubt. 25      In the present case, it is appropriate to apply Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, on the basis that the answer to the first and second questions admits of no reasonable doubt, while the answer to the third question may be clearly deduced from the case-law of the Court.  The first and second questions 26      By its first two questions, which should be considered together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 19(d) and Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation No 1315/2013, read in conjunction with recital 6 of that regulation, and Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006, preclude national legislation prohibiting the construction of motorway service areas on private land. 27      It should be recalled at the outset that Regulation No 1315/2013 establishes, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network comprising a dual-layer structure consisting of the comprehensive network and of the core network, the latter being established on the basis of the comprehensive network. 28      Article 19(d) of that regulation, which governs the development of the comprehensive network, requires Member States to give priority, in the promotion of projects of common interest related to road infrastructure, to the provision of appropriate parking space for commercial users offering an appropriate level of safety and security. 29      Article 39(2)(c) of that regulation, which is found in Chapter III thereof, concerning the development of the core network, provides for the development of rest areas approximately every 100 km on the motorways of that network, in line with the needs of society, of the market and of the environment, in order inter alia to provide appropriate parking space for commercial road users with an appropriate level of safety and security. 30      It is apparent from the wording of those provisions that they lay down objectives relating to the development of rest and parking areas, without, however, imposing any requirement as to the public or private nature of the land on which those areas are to be built. 31      That interpretation cannot be called into question by recital 6 of Regulation No 1315/2013, which merely states that entities other than the Member States, including ‘private-sector partners’, have also become relevant for the implementation of a multimodal trans-European transport network and in the necessary investments. In any event, it is settled case-law that the preamble to an EU act has no binding legal force and cannot be relied on as a ground for interpreting the actual provisions of the act in question in a manner clearly contrary to their wording (see, to that effect, judgments of 28 June 2012, Caronna, C‑7/11, EU:C:2012:396, paragraph 40, and of 20 January 2022, Air Berlin, C‑165/20, EU:C:2022:42, paragraph 55). 32      In relation, furthermore, to Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006, paragraph 1 thereof requires the Commission to ensure that information about safe and secure parking areas is easily accessible to drivers and to publish a list of certified parking areas on an official website that is regularly updated. Paragraph 3 of Article 8a provides that it is incumbent on Member States, in accordance with Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation No 1315/2013, to encourage the creation of parking space for commercial users. 33      It must be stated that, as with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 28 and 29 above, Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006 does not impose any requirement relating to the public or private nature of the land on which the motorway service areas are to be built. In particular, it does not require Member States to authorise the construction of such areas on private land. 34      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first two questions is that Article 19(d) and Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation No 1315/2013, read in conjunction with recital 6 of that regulation, and Article 8a of Regulation No 561/2006, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation prohibiting the construction of motorway service areas on private land.  The third question 35      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a company established in a Member State which, having undertaken the construction of a motorway service area in that Member State, is subject, in judicial proceedings seeking the annulment of permits issued for that purpose, to national legislation prohibiting the construction of such areas on private land. 36      According to settled case-law, the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital do not apply to a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State (judgments of 15 November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C‑268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited, and of 2 March 2023, Bursa Română de Mărfuri, C‑394/21, EU:C:2023:146, paragraph 48). 37      In such a situation, it is for the referring court to indicate in what way the dispute pending before it, despite its purely domestic character, has a connecting factor with the provisions of EU law on the fundamental freedoms that makes the preliminary ruling on interpretation necessary for it to give judgment in that dispute (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C‑268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph 55, and of 17 October 2024, FA.RO. di YK & C., C‑16/23, EU:C:2024:886, paragraph 40). 38      The request for a preliminary ruling must establish that connecting link by reference to specific, clear evidence, and not abstract or hypothetical considerations. Thus, the referring court may not, in the context of a purely internal situation, merely submit evidence suggesting that such a link cannot be ruled out, but must, on the contrary, provide objective and consistent evidence enabling the Court to ascertain whether such a link exists (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 March 2023, Bursa Română de Mărfuri, C‑394/21, EU:C:2023:146, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited, and of 22 February 2024, Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni, C‑660/22, EU:C:2024:152, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). 39      In the present case, the referring court itself observes that, first, OMW is a Romanian legal person providing its services on Romanian territory and, secondly, the construction and operation of motorway service areas on that territory constitute a situation that is purely internal to Romania. It also observes that the prohibition, laid down in national legislation, on building such areas on private land applies without distinction to all providers of such services, irrespective of their nationality and that of the recipients of the services they provide, and that it does not appear that it indirectly favours service providers established in Romania. 40      In that context, which, as the referring court acknowledges, is purely internal to the Member State concerned, it adds that the services that OMW intends to provide on the areas at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings are ancillary to road transport on Romanian motorways, such that nationals of other Member States who might in future be recipients of those services would not travel to Romania for that reason alone. 41      In any event, an assertion that some of the future customers of a service provider will come from a Member State other than that in which it is established is not sufficient to establish the existence of a cross-border situation capable of falling within the scope of Article 56 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 December 2020, BONVER WIN, C‑311/19, EU:C:2020:981, paragraph 25). 42      Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a company established in a Member State which, having undertaken the construction of a motorway service area in that Member State, is subject, in judicial proceedings seeking the annulment of permits issued for that purpose, to national legislation prohibiting the construction of such areas on private land.  The fourth question 43      In view of the answer to the third question, there is no need to reply to the fourth question.  Costs 44      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules: 1.      Article 19(d) and Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, read in conjunction with recital 6 of that regulation, and Article 8a of 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation prohibiting the construction of motorway service areas on private land. 2.      Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a company established in a Member State which, having undertaken the construction of a motorway service area in that Member State, is subject, in judicial proceedings seeking the annulment of permits issued for that purpose, to national legislation prohibiting the construction of such areas on private land. [Signatures] *      Language of the case: Romanian.