Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

18 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Open data and the re-use of public sector information – Directive (EU) 2019/1024 – Article 2(3) – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice – Concept of ‘public undertaking’ – Undertaking owned by several public sector bodies – Presumption of ‘dominant influence’ – Criteria for assessment )

In Case C‑575/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Městský soud v Praze (Municipal Court, Prague, Czech Republic), made by decision of 23 July 2024, received at the Court on 28 August 2024, in the proceedings

Vodovody a kanalizace Přerov, a.s.

Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias (Rapporteur) and B. Smulders, Judges,

Advocate General: R. Norkus,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Vodovody a kanalizace Přerov, a.s., by F. Korbel, advokát,

– the Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů, by P. Jäger,

– the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and L. Halajová, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by G. Meeßen and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 March 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2019 L 172, p. 56).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Vodovody a kanalizace Přerov, a.s. (‘VaK Přerov’) and the Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů (Office for Personal Data Protection, Czech Republic; ‘the Office’) regarding a request for information received by the former, seeking disclosure of the minutes of meetings of its bodies.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2014/25/EU

3 Article 3 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243), entitled ‘Contracting authorities’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘For the purpose of this Directive “contracting authorities” means State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law or associations formed by one or more such authorities or one or more such bodies governed by public law.’

4 Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Contracting entities’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘“Public undertaking” means any undertaking over which the contracting authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it.

A dominant influence on the part of the contracting authorities shall be presumed in any of the following cases in which those authorities, directly or indirectly:

(a) hold the majority of the undertaking’s subscribed capital;

(b) control the majority of the votes attaching to shares issued by the undertaking;

Directive 2019/1024

5 Recitals 1, 13, 20, 23 to 26 and 29 of Directive 2019/1024 state:

‘(1) Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)] has been substantially amended. Since further amendments are to be made, that Directive should be recast in the interests of clarity.

…

(13) One of the principal aims of the establishment of an internal market is the creation of conditions conducive to the development of services and products [EU]-wide and within Member States. Public sector information or information collected, produced, reproduced, and disseminated within the exercise of a public task or a service of general interest, is an important primary material for digital content products and services and will become an even more important content resource with the development of advanced digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technologies and the internet of things. Broad, cross-border geographical coverage will also be essential in that context. Increased possibilities of re-using such information is expected, inter alia, to allow all [EU] businesses, including microenterprises and [small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)], as well as civil society, to exploit its potential and contribute to economic development and high-quality job creation and protection, especially for the benefit of local communities, and to important societal goals such as accountability and transparency.

…

(20) … Public sector bodies collect, produce, reproduce and disseminate documents to fulfil their public tasks. Public undertakings collect, produce, reproduce and disseminate documents to provide services in the general interest. Use of such documents for other reasons constitutes re-use. Member States’ policies can go beyond the minimum standards established in this Directive, thus allowing for more extensive re-use. …

…

(23) … This Directive lays down an obligation for Member States to make all existing documents re-usable unless access is restricted or excluded under national rules on access to documents or subject to the other exceptions laid down in this Directive. This Directive builds on the existing access regimes in the Member States and does not change the national rules for access to documents. It does not apply to cases in which citizens or legal entities can, under the relevant access regime, obtain a document only if they can prove a particular interest. … Public sector bodies should be encouraged to make available for re-use any documents held by them. …

(24) Member States often entrust the provision of services in the general interest with entities outside of the public sector while maintaining a high degree of control over such entities. At the same time, Directive 2003/98/EC applies only to documents held by public sector bodies, while excluding public undertakings from its scope. This leads to poor availability for re-use of documents produced in the performance of services in the general interest in a number of areas, in particular in the utility sectors. It also greatly reduces the potential for the creation of cross-border services based on documents held by public undertakings that provide services in the general interest.

(25) Directive 2003/98/EC should therefore be amended in order to ensure that it can be applied to the re-use of existing documents produced in the performance of services in the general interest by public undertakings pursuing one of the activities referred to in Articles 8 to 14 of Directive 2014/25/EU, as well as by public undertakings acting as public service operators pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1)], public undertakings acting as air carriers fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3)], and public undertakings acting as Community shipowners fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 [of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7)].

(26) This Directive does not contain a general obligation to allow the re-use of documents produced by public undertakings. The decision whether or not to authorise re-use should remain with the public undertaking concerned, except where otherwise required by this Directive or by [EU] or national law. Only after the public undertaking has made a document available for re-use, should it observe the relevant obligations laid down in Chapters III and IV of this Directive, in particular as regards format, charging, transparency, licences, non-discrimination and prohibition of exclusive arrangements. On the other hand, public undertakings should not be required to comply with the requirements laid down in Chapter II, such as the rules applicable to processing of requests. When allowing the re-use of documents, particular attention should be given to sensitive critical infrastructure protection related information as defined in Council Directive 2008/114/EC [of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 75)] and of essential services within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (OJ 2016 L 194, p. 1)].

…

(29) The definition of “public sector body” is based on the definition in point (1) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65)]. The definition of “body governed by public law” set out in that Directive and the definition of “public undertaking” set out in Directive 2014/25/EU should apply to this Directive.’

6 Article 1 of Directive 2019/1024, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides:

‘1. In order to promote the use of open data and stimulate innovation in products and services, this Directive establishes a set of minimum rules governing the re-use and the practical arrangements for facilitating the re-use of:

(a) existing documents held by public sector bodies of the Member States;

(b) existing documents held by public undertakings that are:

(i) active in the areas defined in Directive 2014/25/EU;

(ii) acting as public service operators pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007;

(iii) acting as air carriers fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008; or

(iv) acting as Community shipowners fulfilling public service obligations pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92;

…

2. This Directive does not apply to:

…

(b) documents held by public undertakings:

(i) produced outside the scope of the provision of services in the general interest as defined by law or other binding rules in the Member State;

(ii) related to activities directly exposed to competition and therefore, pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU, not subject to procurement rules;

…

(d) documents, such as sensitive data, which are excluded from access by virtue of the access regimes in the Member State, including on grounds of:

(i) the protection of national security (namely, State security), defence, or public security;

(ii) statistical confidentiality;

(iii) commercial confidentiality (including business, professional or company secrets);

…

(f) documents access to which is restricted by virtue of the access regimes in the Member States, including cases whereby citizens or legal entities have to prove a particular interest to obtain access to documents;

…

3. This Directive builds on, and is without prejudice to, [EU] and national access regimes.

…

7. This Directive governs the re-use of existing documents held by public sector bodies and public undertakings of the Member States …’

7 Article 2 of Directive 2019/1024, entitled ‘Definitions’, is worded as follows:

‘For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions apply:

(1) “public sector body” means the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law or associations formed by one or more such authorities or one or more such bodies governed by public law;

(2) “bodies governed by public law” means bodies that have all of the following characteristics:

(a) they are established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character;

(b) they have legal personality; and

(c) they are financed, for the most part by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law; or are subject to management supervision by those authorities or bodies; or have an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law;

(3) “public undertaking” means any undertaking active in the areas set out in point (b) of Article 1(1) over which the public sector bodies may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it. A dominant influence on the part of the public sector bodies shall be presumed in any of the following cases in which those bodies, directly or indirectly:

(a) hold the majority of the undertaking’s subscribed capital;

(b) control the majority of the votes attaching to shares issued by the undertaking;

…

(11) “re-use” means the use by persons or legal entities of documents held by:

(a) public sector bodies, for commercial or non-commercial purposes other than the initial purpose within the public task for which the documents were produced, except for the exchange of documents between public sector bodies purely in pursuit of their public tasks; or

(b) public undertakings, for commercial or non-commercial purposes other than for the initial purpose of providing services in the general interest for which the documents were produced, except for the exchange of documents between public undertakings and public sector bodies purely in pursuit of the public tasks of public sector bodies;

…’

Czech law

8 Zákon č. 106/1999 Sb., o svobodném přístupu k informacím (Law No 106/1999 on free access to information) was amended by zákon č. 241/2022 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 106/1999 Sb., o svobodném přístupu k informacím, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, zákon č. 123/1998 Sb., o právu na informace o životním prostředí, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a zákon č. 130/2002 Sb., o podpoře výzkumu, experimentálního vývoje a inovací z veřejných prostředků a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o podpoře výzkumu, experimentálního vývoje a inovací), ve znění pozdějších předpisů (Law No 241/2022 amending Law No 106/1999 on free access to information, as amended, Law No 123/1998 on the right to environmental information, as amended, and Law No 130/2002 on support for research, experimental development and innovation from public funds and amending certain related laws (Law on support for research, experimental development and innovation)) (‘the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024’).

9 Paragraph 2(1) of Law No 106/1999 on free access to information, as amended by the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024 (‘the Law on free access to information’), provides:

‘Obliged entities that must provide information pursuant to this Law concerning their competence are State authorities, self-governing territorial units and their bodies, and public institutions.’

10 Under Paragraph 2a of that law:

‘1. Obliged entities shall include public undertakings which, for the purposes of this Law, are legal entities that are not obliged entities pursuant to Paragraph 2(1), and

(a) which:

1. carry out relevant activities pursuant to the Law on Public Procurement;

2. act as providers of public services, pursuant to Article 2 of [Regulation No 1370/2007];

3. act as air carriers fulfilling public service obligations, pursuant to Article 16 of [Regulation No 1008/2008]; or

4. act as boat owners fulfilling public service obligations, pursuant to Article 4 of [Regulation No 3577/92]; and

(b) in which the obliged entity referred to in Paragraph 2(1) may directly or indirectly exercise a dominant influence on the basis of ownership interest in the legal entity or the rules which govern it.

2. The condition of dominant influence is met if the obliged entity referred to in Paragraph 2(1) directly or indirectly:

(a) holds a majority of the subscribed capital of the public undertaking;

(b) controls a majority of the votes attached to the shares issued by the undertaking; or

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

11 VaK Přerov is a public limited company incorporated under Czech law, which operates in the water supply and sanitation sector. It is almost entirely owned by Czech towns and municipalities, with no single shareholder holding a majority stake.

12 A request was made to that company, on the basis of the Law on free access to information, for disclosure of minutes of the meetings of its bodies. As VaK Přerov was of the view that it was not an ‘obliged entity’ within the meaning of that law, and that, therefore, it was not required to provide such information, it refused that request.

13 A complaint against that decision was lodged with the Office, which, by decision of 7 March 2023, ordered VaK Přerov to process the request for information in accordance with the Law on free access to information. VaK Přerov brought an action against that decision before the Městský soud v Praze (Municipal Court, Prague, Czech Republic), which is the referring court. In support of its action, that company has argued that it is not an ‘obliged entity’ within the meaning of that law.

14 The referring court considers that, in order to resolve the dispute before it, it is necessary to determine whether VaK Přerov constitutes a ‘public undertaking’ within the meaning of Paragraph 2a(1) of the Law on free access to information, a category which was introduced into that law by the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024.

15 According to the referring court, that dispute concerns, inter alia, the question whether, in order to be classified as a ‘public undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024, and, therefore, within the meaning of Paragraph 2a(1) of the Law on free access to information, the dominant influence over that undertaking for the purposes of the first of those provisions must be exercised by a single public sector body or, as the case may be, jointly by several public sector bodies. It is the latter view which, in the context of the main proceedings, is expressed by the Office.

16 By contrast, VaK Přerov considers that such an interpretation does not follow from Directive 2019/1024, and that in this instance there could be a ‘dominant influence’, within the meaning of that directive, only if one of the territorial units among its shareholders held a majority stake by itself, or if there was no doubt that different shareholders were acting in concert.

17 In those circumstances, the Městský soud v Praze (Municipal Court, Prague) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Is Article 2(3) of [Directive 2019/1024] to be interpreted as meaning that the term [“public undertaking”] includes an undertaking in which several public sector bodies may jointly exercise a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it?

(2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a dominant influence, as defined in the abovementioned article of Directive 2019/1024, to be assumed, even where several public sector bodies jointly hold the majority of an undertaking’s subscribed capital, control the majority of the votes attaching to shares issued by the undertaking, or can appoint more than half of the undertaking’s administrative, management or supervisory body, or is it necessary to examine whether those public sector bodies actually act in concert and have common interests?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The jurisdiction of the Court

18 It is for the Court to examine the conditions in which a case has been referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction to answer the questions put by that court (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 December 2020, J & S Service, C‑620/19, EU:C:2020:1011, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

19 In that regard, the European Commission argues that the dispute in the main proceedings does not concern the re-use of public sector documents, governed by Directive 2019/1024, but a request for access to documents which does not fall within the scope of that directive. Such a request would be governed, as is clear from Article 1(3) of Directive 2019/1024, read in conjunction with recital 23 thereof, by the law of Member States or, potentially, by sectoral EU regulations on access to information.

20 In this instance, the dispute has arisen as a result of a request for access to information, made on the basis of the Law on free access to information. As the referring court states in its response to the Court’s request for clarification, that law does not require the person making such a request to indicate expressly its intention to re-use the information requested, within the meaning of Article 2(11) of Directive 2019/1024.

21 It is apparent from the explanatory memorandum to the draft which led to the adoption of the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024, as presented by the referring court in that response, that the Czech legislature has consistently opted, since the transposition of Directive 2003/98, for a regime ensuring the re-use of information through the exercise of the right to information.

22 In that regard, it should be noted that the Court has repeatedly declared that it has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on questions concerning provisions of EU law in situations where, even if the facts of the case in the main proceedings do not fall within the field of application of EU law directly, provisions of EU law have been rendered applicable by domestic law due to a reference made by that law to the content of those provisions. In such situations, it is clearly in the interest of the European Union that, in order to forestall potential future differences of interpretation, the provisions taken from EU law should be interpreted uniformly (see judgments of 18 October 1990, Dzodzi, C‑297/88 and C‑197/89, EU:C:1990:360, paragraph 37; of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Post and Others, C‑203/18 and C‑374/18, EU:C:2019:999, paragraph 36; and of 10 December 2020, J & S Service, C‑620/19, EU:C:2020:1011, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

23 Thus, an interpretation by the Court of provisions of EU law in situations not falling within the scope of EU law is warranted where such provisions have been made applicable to such situations by national law directly and unconditionally, in order to ensure that those situations and situations falling within the scope of EU law are treated in the same way (judgment of 21 November 2019, Deutsche Post and Others, C‑203/18 and C‑374/18, EU:C:2019:999, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

24 In this instance, the referring court argues that, by adopting, in 2022, the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024, the national legislature extended the circle of entities subject to the obligation to provide information to include entities subject to the obligations laid down in that directive, thereby deliberately deciding to align the personal scope of the Law on free access to information with the personal scope of the directive.

25 In those circumstances, it must be held that the national legislature made Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024, which defines the term ‘public undertaking’, directly and unconditionally applicable, for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, to situations which do not necessarily fall within the scope of that directive, but which are governed by the Law transposing Directive 2019/1024.

26 It is true that it can be seen from Article 1(2) and (3) of Directive 2019/1024 that, as the Court has already held, the ‘re-use’ of a document, within the meaning of that directive, presupposes access to that document, which underscores the close link between those two operations. However, those operations are obviously distinct. The directive does not enshrine a right of access to public sector documents, but presupposes the existence of such a right in the law of the Member States or in EU law, with the result that the conditions of access to those documents do not fall within the scope of that directive (judgment of 21 November 2024, HP – Hrvatska pošta, C‑336/23, EU:C:2024:979, paragraphs 28 and 31 and the case-law cited).

27 However, having regard to the case-law referred to in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the present judgment, such a distinction does not appear, in this instance, to be relevant for determining whether the Court has jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in the present case. It is apparent from the file before the Court that Paragraph 2a of the Law on free access to information, following, in that regard, the example of EU law concerning the re-use of public sector information, extends the personal scope of that national law to public undertakings in possession of such information. As has been observed, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 59 of his Opinion, the national legislature did not merely draw inspiration from Directive 2019/1024 but extended its legislative effects to situations governed by domestic law without making reservations in that regard and without amending the content of the concept of ‘public undertaking’ as defined in Article 2(3) thereof. It should be noted, in that regard, that Paragraph 2a of that law repeats almost word for word the categories of public undertakings referred to in Article 1(1)(b) of that directive.

28 It must therefore be held that that provision has been rendered applicable as such by national law (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 10 December 2020, J & S Service, C‑620/19, EU:C:2020:1011, paragraphs 50 and 51 and the case-law cited).

29 In those circumstances, there is a clear interest in the Court interpreting Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024 in order to ensure its uniform interpretation, with the result that the Court has jurisdiction, under Article 267 TFEU, to answer the questions put by the referring court in that regard.

Substance

30 By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks the Court of Justice, in essence, whether Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024 is to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘public undertaking’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an undertaking over which several public sector bodies may jointly exercise a dominant influence and, if so, whether, in order to presume such an influence, it is necessary to examine whether those bodies act in concert and have common interests.

31 It should be borne in mind in that regard that, according to settled case-law, when interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 5 February 2026, Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Vehicle originating in Russia), C‑619/24, EU:C:2026:73, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).

32 As regards, first, the wording used in Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024, that provision expressly refers to ‘any undertaking’ over which ‘public sector bodies’, in the plural, ‘may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it’.

33 Second, as regards the context in which that provision occurs, it is apparent from recital 29 of Directive 2019/1024 that, in the context of that directive, the EU legislature chose to refer to the definition of the concept of ‘public undertaking’ which is set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2014/25. That latter provision refers to ‘any undertaking’ over which the ‘contracting authorities’, in the plural, ‘may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it’.

34 It follows from the foregoing that the EU legislature expressly decided to include within the concept of ‘public undertaking’, within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024, not only undertakings over which a single public sector body may exercise a dominant influence but also undertakings over which such an influence may be exercised by several public sector bodies.

35 Third, such a reading of Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024 is confirmed by the objectives pursued by that directive. As is set out in recital 13 thereof, the directive aims to take full advantage, for the European economy and European civil society, of the potential of public sector information and of information collected, produced, reproduced and disseminated within the exercise of a public task or a service of general interest.

36 In addition, it is apparent from recitals 24 and 25 of Directive 2019/1024 that the intention of the EU legislature, in adopting that directive, was to extend the scope of the EU regulatory framework relating thereto in order to cover documents produced in the performance of services in the general interest by public undertakings covered by Directive 2014/25, in order to best serve the objective of Directive 2019/1024.

37 It must therefore be held, in the light of the objectives of Directive 2019/1024 referred to in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the present judgment, that the provisions defining the personal scope of that directive, and, in particular, those defining the concept of ‘public undertaking’, must be interpreted broadly.

38 In that regard, it should be noted that both undertakings over which only one public sector body exercises a dominant influence and those over which such influence is exercised jointly by several of those bodies may carry out a public task or provide a service of general interest. Therefore, if Article 2(3) of that directive were to be interpreted as applying only to the first group of undertakings, that would not enable the objectives pursued by that directive, namely fully to exploit the potential of public sector information and to extend the scope of the regulatory framework at issue, to be fully achieved.

39 It must therefore be held that Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘public undertaking’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an undertaking over which several public sector bodies may jointly exercise a dominant influence.

40 In so far as the referring court asks the Court of Justice to clarify whether, in such a case, those bodies must act in concert and have common interests for that influence to be presumed to be dominant, within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024, it must be stated, from the outset, that no such requirement is apparent from either its wording or the context in which it occurs. In that provision, the EU legislature merely stated that a dominant influence, within the meaning of that provision, is to be presumed when those bodies, directly or indirectly, hold the majority of the undertaking’s subscribed capital, control the majority of votes attaching to shares issued by the undertaking, or can appoint more than half of the undertaking’s administrative, management or supervisory body.

41 Those alternative criteria reflect objective situations without taking into account factors such as the acting in concert and the common interests of the public sector bodies concerned, factors which are, moreover, likely to vary during an undertaking’s existence, in particular in relation to the challenges faced by that undertaking’s decision-making bodies and the decisions which they must take in that regard. Taking into account factors relating to such complex factual assessments would run counter to the objectives pursued by that directive as set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the present judgment.

42 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 2(3) of Directive 2019/1024 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘public undertaking’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an undertaking over which several public sector bodies may jointly exercise a dominant influence, without it being necessary, in order for such an influence to be presumed, to examine whether those bodies act in concert and have common interests.

Costs

43 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. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 2(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘public undertaking’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an undertaking over which several public sector bodies may jointly exercise a dominant influence, without it being necessary, in order for such an influence to be presumed, to examine whether those bodies act in concert and have common interests.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Czech.