Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2004:194
Date: 2004-03-30
Language of the case: Finnish;Spanish
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Social Policy;Transport
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain;Finland

summary in that recital. 78 The Republic of Finland submits that the Parliament and the Council failed to comply with the requirement to give reasons, since the preamble to the contested directive does not specify the distortions of competition it purports to abolish or the means adopted for that purpose. It adds that the directive, without going so far as to state reasons for every technical choice made by the legislature, should at least have identified, with respect to each aim pursued, the existing problems and the means envisaged for eliminating them, in view in particular of the directive’s interference with the freedom to conduct a business. 79 It must be pointed out, however, that the considerations concerning the gaps in the existing legislation, set out in the first and second recitals in the preamble to the contested directive, and the general objectives of road safety and harmonisation of conditions of competition, identified in the fourth, tenth and eleventh recitals in that preamble, also concern self-employed drivers and are therefore sufficient from the point of view of the requirements defined in the case-law for measures of general application (see Case C-150/94 United Kingdom v Council [1998] ECR I-7235, paragraphs 25 and 26, and Case C-168/98 Luxembourg v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-9131, paragraphs 62 and 66) to justify the possible future application of the directive to that class of persons performing mobile transport activities. 80 Moreover, as the Parliament and the Commission rightly observe, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland were, by taking part in the work of the Council, directly involved in the process of drawing up the contested directive, and are therefore aware of the reasons which formed the basis of the provisions of that directive relating to self-employed drivers (see, to that effect, Case C-54/91 Germany v Commission [1993] ECR I-3399, paragraph 11). 81 It follows that these pleas must be rejected. 82 In the light of the foregoing, the applications must be dismissed in their entirety. Costs 83 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered, in accordance with the pleadings of the Parliament and the Council, to bear their own costs and pay those of the defendant institutions. Under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, institutions which intervene in a case are to bear their own costs. The Commission, which has intervened, must therefore bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the actions; 2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of the defendants; 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. Signatures. 1 – Languages of the case: Spanish and Finnish.