Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:997
Date: 2016-12-21
Language of the case: Czech
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 July 2017 1. Transport — Road transport — Intelligent Transport Systems — No obligation of the Member States to deploy applications and services of such systems (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/40; Commission Regulations No 885/2013 and No 886/2013) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Interpretation of an implementing regulation in the light of the basic regulation 3. EU institutions — Exercise of powers — Power conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Need for the EU legislature to delimit that power clearly in the basic legislative act — Scope (Art. 290(1), second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/40, Arts 6 and 7) 4. Appeal — Grounds — Grounds of a judgment containing an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 5. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 6. EU institutions — Exercise of powers — Power conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Obligation not to modify the essential elements of the basic legislative act — Categorisation of essential elements — Taking into account the characteristics and particular features of the field concerned — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 290(1), second para., TFEU) 1. Regulations No 885/2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40 with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles and No 886/2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40 with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users do not contain any provision laying down an express obligation of the Member States to deploy applications and services of intelligent transport systems in their territory. It follows unequivocally from the reference to Directive 2010/40 in Article 1 of each of those regulations that they require the Member States only to take the necessary measures for the specifications in those regulations to be applied to applications and services of intelligent transport systems where they are deployed. (see paras 25, 30) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 33) 3. While, under Article 7 of Directive 2010/40 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport, the Commission is obliged to adopt the specifications necessary to ensure the compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of intelligent transport systems, it remains the case that, having regard to Article 290 TFEU, the delegation of power in Article 7 cannot be interpreted as authorising the Commission to exceed the bounds laid down by Article 6 of the directive, which explicitly defines not only, in paragraph 1, the objective of the specifications but also their content and scope, by expressly determining, in particular in paragraph 4, the measures which may be the subject of specifications. In accordance with the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU, not only the objectives but also the content, scope and duration of the delegation of power must be explicitly defined in the legislative act. That requirement implies that the purpose of granting a delegated power is to achieve the adoption of rules coming within the regulatory framework as defined by the basic legislative act. Moreover, the definition of the power conferred must be sufficiently precise, in that it must indicate clearly the limits of the power and must enable the Commission’s use of the power to be reviewed by reference to objective criteria fixed by the EU legislature. In this respect, it cannot be validly maintained that the only restriction on the EU legislature in connection with framing a delegation of power is that the adoption of essential elements of the area in question must not be delegated. It is true that the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU allows the EU legislature to confer on the Commission a discretion for exercising the power it delegates, a discretion which may be more or less extensive, depending on the nature of the matter in question. However, a delegation of power within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU (and any discretion it may involve) must be delimited by bounds fixed in the basic act. (see paras 47-50, 52) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 56) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 72) 6. In accordance with the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU, the essential elements of an area are reserved for the legislative act and cannot therefore be the subject of a delegation of power. An element is essential within the meaning of that provision in particular if, in order to be adopted, it requires political choices falling within the responsibilities of the EU legislature, in that it requires the conflicting interests at issue to be weighed up on the basis of a number of assessments, or if it means that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned may be interfered with to such an extent that the involvement of the EU legislature is required. By expressly stipulating that the essential elements of an area are reserved for the legislative act and cannot therefore be the subject of delegation, the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU sets a limit to the latitude enjoyed by the EU legislature in connection with a delegation of power. That provision is intended to ensure that decisions on such elements are reserved to the EU legislature. Therefore, if the EU Court does not examine whether or not a certain aspect of the basic legislative act is an essential element within the meaning of that provision, but confines itself to a reference to the scope of the delegation of power in that legislative act, it disregards the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU. Thus, contrary to what that provision requires, the EU Court did not make sure that the adoption of rules relating to the essential elements of the area in question remained reserved to the EU legislature and was not the subject of a delegation of power. (see paras 75, 78, 81-83)