(AGENPARL) – Thu 18 September 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 126/25
Luxembourg, 18 September 2025
Advocate General’s Opinion in Joined Cases C-188/24 | WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates,
and C-190/24 | Coyote System
Advocate General Szpunar: a measure constituting a corollary of the
provisions of criminal law or necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness
of roadside checks comes under the country of origin principle, as
provided for in the Directive on electronic commerce
French legislation restricts certain digital services in order to protect public order and security. In particular, it
prohibits the provision of access to pornographic sites by minors and requires publishers of such sites to implement
technical arrangements to prevent such access. It also limits geolocation-based driving assistance services by
prohibiting the reporting of certain roadside inspections. Those measures are implemented by two decrees, the
annulment of which is sought before the French Council of State in two separate cases.
In Case C-188/24, the companies WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, established in the Czech Republic,
submit that French legislation infringes the ‘country of origin’ principle laid down in the Directive on electronic
commerce, 1 according to which, as regards requirements falling within the ‘coordinated field’, services are governed
by the law of the State of establishment.
In Case C-190/24, the company specialising in the Coyote System driving aid, established in France, submits that the
prohibition on reporting certain roadside inspections infringes the ‘country of origin’ principle and imposes a
monitoring obligation prohibited by the directive.
The Council of State referred the matter to the Court of Justice in order to ascertain, inter alia, whether the
obligation imposed on online service publishers falls within the ‘coordinated field’ 2 of the directive and whether that
field covers the prohibition on driving assistance services.
In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar proposes that the Court rule that the coordinated
field defined by the directive encompasses the obligation on publishers of online communication services to
implement technical arrangements designed to prevent minors from accessing pornographic content. He
also considers that that field includes a prohibition on operators of an electronic driving assistance or
geolocation-based navigation service from circulating any message or indication issued by users which may
enable other users to evade roadside inspections. In his view, that is so despite the fact that those obligations do
not relate to any of the matters governed by the harmonising provisions of that directive.
The Advocate General considers that the measures taken by France are not excluded from the coordinated field on
the sole ground that they constitute, respectively, a corollary of provisions of criminal law and a necessary measure
to ensure the effectiveness of roadside inspections carried out to stop persons wanted for crimes or offences, or
who pose a threat to public order or security.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
As regards the WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates case, he notes that the arrangements for the
protection of minors provided for by EU law, the result of a consensus between Member States, are already
circumscribed, inter alia, by a derogation provided for in the directive, 3 so that it is not possible to circumvent that
mechanism in order to impose obligations arising from general and abstract provisions on service providers.
Furthermore, in the Coyote System case, the Advocate General points out that the third question concerns a
provision 4 of the directive which applies only where the service provider is classified as a ‘host’. However, the
geolocation service of the Coyote System does not fall within the definition of host: it does not merely store and
disseminate the data as provided, but transforms that data, using an algorithm, into a new information layer, with
the result that that provision is not applicable to that service.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in
particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).
The coordinated field corresponds to the requirements laid down by the legal systems of the Member States, applicable to providers of information
society services or to information society services, whether they are of a general nature or whether they have been specifically designed for them.
Article 3(4).
Article 15, which prohibits Member States from imposing on hosts a general and permanent monitoring obligation.
Communications Directorate