Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:473
Date: 2017-06-15
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

summary, the premiss on which free movement of tractors within the European Union is based is that they were, when new, that is to say before they were put into service, covered by an EC type-approval. 65. In my opinion, used tractors imported from a third country and put into service in the European Union for the first time should be subject to equally stringent requirements. 66. This approach is consistent with the system put in place by Directive 2003/37, which is based on the principle that all vehicles belonging to specified categories must satisfy uniform technical requirements before first entering into circulation within the European Union. 67. I would add that, as the Lithuanian Government has in substance observed, if the interpretation according to which used vehicles imported into the European Union from a third country are not subject to the harmonised technical requirements were to be accepted, there would be a risk of those requirements being circumvented. An importer or distributor would have only to declare that it was importing used vehicles in order to escape those requirements. In addition, if the technical requirements laid down by Directive 2003/37 did not apply to used vehicles placed on the EU market for the first time, their importers and distributors would obtain a competitive advantage by comparison to manufacturers, importers and distributors of vehicles which had never entered into service. 68. Such an interpretation would also run counter to the objective of strengthening the internal market pursued successively by Directive 74/150, then Directive 2003/37 and now Regulation No 167/2013. Creating a lacuna in the harmonisation of technical requirements applicable to tractors would also affect, for the worse, the objectives of ensuring road safety, safety at work and the protection of the environment. 69. To leave it to the Member States to lay down the technical requirements applicable to used vehicles imported from a third country into the European Union would create disparities between those States, of a kind liable to hinder the movement between them of used vehicles imported from a third country. The fragmentation of the internal market which would follow would be incompatible not only with that objective of strengthening the internal market to which I have referred, but also with the principle, expressed in the fourth recital of Directive 2003/37, that that directive is based on the principle of total harmonisation. 70. It is, however, for the referring court to determine whether the mechanism of equivalence provided for by Article 12(3) of Directive 2003/37 can be implemented in the present case. Under that provision, ‘the equivalence of type-approvals issued on the basis of the UN/ECE regulations which are annexed to the revised 1958 Agreement set out in Annex II, Chapter B, Part II-B, to this Directive, is acknowledged’. Setting that mechanism in motion could, potentially, preclude the refusal to register the used tractors imported by Agrodetalė. 71. Finally, I would point out, in answer to the second question, that the foregoing analysis militates in favour of aligning the conditions applicable to the first entry into service in the European Union of new vehicles and of used vehicles imported into the European Union from a third country. In accordance with Article 23(1)(b) of Directive 2003/37, and with regard to used vehicles imported into the European Union from a third country, the technical requirements laid down by that directive must therefore be satisfied by vehicles put into service in the European Union for the first time on or after 1 July 2009. IV – Conclusion 72. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the response to the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court, Lithuania) should be as follows: Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/44/EU of 18 March 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be capable of being registered in a Member State, used vehicles imported into that State from a third country and belonging to the categories covered by Directive 2003/37 are required to comply, before their first entry into service in the European Union and when that takes place on or after 1 July 2009, with the technical requirements laid down by that directive. 1 Original language: French. 2 OJ 2003 L 171, p. 1. 3 OJ 2014 L 82, p. 20, ‘Directive 2003/37’. 4 OJ 1974 L 84, p. 10. 5 See Article 24(1) of Directive 2003/37. 6 Žin., 2014, No 9566 (‘Order No 3D-396’). 7 See Article 7(1), Article 10(1), and Article 23(1)(b) of Directive 2003/37. 8 See judgment of 29 May 1997, VAG Sverige (C‑329/95, EU:C:1997:256). 9 See, by analogy, judgment of 18 November 2010, Lahousse and Lavichy (C‑142/09, EU:C:2010:694, paragraph 27). 10 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles (OJ 2013 L 60, p. 1). As indicated in Article 76(1) of that regulation, it repealed Directive 2003/37 with effect from 1 January 2016. 11 OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1. 12 COM(2016) 31 final, presented on 27 January 2016. 13 Section 3.2 of the explanatory memorandum to the proposal, p. 6. 14 Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 24). 15 Second edition of the Guide, June 2010, p. 61.