Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:728
Date: 2013-11-07
Language of the case: Polish
Subject matter: Free movement of goods
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Lithuania;Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 20 March 2014 1. Approximation of laws — Motor vehicles — Community approval procedure — Steering equipment for motor vehicles — Directives 2007/46 and 70/311 — Registration of new vehicles with steering equipment located on the same side as the direction of the traffic — National legislation requiring the repositioning of the steering wheel of those vehicles to the other side during their registration — Unlawful (European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/46, Art. 4(3); Council Directive 70/311, Art. 2a) 2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Registration of used cars previously registered in other Member States with steering equipment located on the same side as the direction of the traffic — National legislation requiring the repositioning of the steering wheel of those vehicles to the other side during their registration — Unlawful — Justification — Road safety — Not proportionate (Art. 34 TFEU) 1. By making registration in its territory of new passenger vehicles having their steering equipment on the same side as the direction of the traffic dependent on the repositioning of the steering wheel to the other side, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Directive 70/311 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers and Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles. The steering equipment of vehicles is specifically covered by Directive 70/311, Article 2a of which requires the Member States not to prohibit, in particular, the registration of vehicles on grounds relating to their steering equipment if the latter satisfy the requirements of that directive. Indeed, Directives 2007/46 and 70/311 make reference to ‘hand of drive: … left/right’, which must be stated on the information document for the purpose of typeapproval of a vehicle. Also, the indication must be made on the certificate of conformity, that the vehicle is ‘adapted’ to traffic on the right or on the left. However, those provisions may not cover fundamental elements of the construction of the vehicle, such as the position of the steering-wheel, but only other elements, such as the vehicles’ lighting and windscreen wiping devices or indirect vision systems. The adaptations that may be required may not relate to the repositioning of the driver’s seat, which would amount to a procedure having a significant impact on the design of the vehicle, contrary to the wording and purpose of Directive 70/311, but solely to procedures having a minimal impact. Consequently, the position of the driver’s seat, an integral part of the steering equipment of a vehicle, comes within the harmonisation established by Directives 2007/46 and 70/311, so that the Member States may not require, for reasons of safety, with a view to the registration of a new vehicle in their territory, the driver’s seat of that vehicle to be moved to the side opposite the direction of the traffic. (see paras 39, 43, 45, 47, operative part) 2. By making registration in its territory of used passenger vehicles, previously registered in other Member States, which have their steering equipment on the same side as the direction of the traffic, dependent on the repositioning of the steering wheel to the other side, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU. Such national legislation constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, in so far as its effect is to hinder access to the market for vehicles which are lawfully constructed and registered in other Member States. However, it may be justified in order to meet imperative requirements, on condition that it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. The need to ensure road safety constitutes such a an imperative requirement relating to the public interest capable of justifying a hindrance to the free movement of goods. However, there exist means and measures less restrictive of the free movement of goods than the measure at issue and, at the same time, capable of significantly reducing the risk which could be created by the use of vehicles with the steering-wheel placed on the same side as the direction of the traffic. The Member States enjoy in that regard discretion for the purpose of imposing measures that would be capable, according to the state of technology, of ensuring sufficient rear and forward visibility for the driver of such a vehicle. Therefore, the measure at issue may not be considered to be necessary in order to attain the objective pursued and is not compatible with the principle of proportionality. (see paras 52-54, 63, 64, operative part)