1.

In connection with proceedings brought by Mr Bernhard Schloh against Auto contrôle technique SPRL, the Third Cantonal Court of Schaerbeek in Belgium has asked this Court to interpret Articles 30 and 13 of the EEC Treaty with reference to the formalities laid down by the Belgian legislation for the approval and registration of imported motor vehicles. In particular, the Cantonal Court asks whether national rules providing for roadworthiness tests in the case of motor vehicles coming from a Member State which have received a certificate of conformity are compatible with the Treaty and whether it is lawful to charge a fee for such tests. In the Federal Republic of Germany at the beginning of 1979, Mr Schloh, a German national residing in Belgium who is an official of the Council of the European Communities, purchased a Ford Granada estate car, which for the purposes of Belgian law is classified as a voiture mixte. ( 1 ) It appears that the car was first placed on the road on 19 January 1979. With a view to importing the car into his country of residence, Schloh obtained a certificate of its conformity to the vehicle type approved in Belgium on 13 February 1979 from Ford Motor Company SA in Antwerp. On 20 March 1979 he submitted the car to Auto contrôle technique, the agency approved by the Minister for Transport for performing the roadworthiness test required for the purposes of registration. The test, for which the owner of the vehicle paid a fee of BFR 500, took place on 22 March 1979. Four days later, Schloh was requested to submit the car for a second test and was informed that he would at that stage need to present a declaration concerning the use of the vehicle. He made such a declaration in a letter to Auto contrôle technique dated 2 April 1979, in which he objected that the requirement of a further test was in his view unreasonable and requested its postponement to a date after 23 April. On 30 May 1979 Auto contrôle technique replied pointing out that under the legislation in force the vehicle had to be submitted for a roadworthiness test ‘notwithstanding the test carried out for the purposes of obtaining the certificate of conformity dated 22 March 1979’. Accordingly, the second test took place on 11 June and, after paying a further BFR 500, Schloh was issued with a certificate of roadworthiness valid for four years. That same day he also wrote to the Minister for Transport requesting him to ascertain whether the duplication of the roadworthiness tests for a new vehicle was in fact in accordance with the Belgian rules, while at the same time reserving the right to seek a ruling on whether those rules were compatible with Community law by means of the procedure under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty. In a letter dated 17 August 1979, the Minister replied that the correct procedure had been followed. He stated that any vehicle imported in a used condition must undergo a roadworthiness test in order to be registered; in addition, estate cars were required to undergo a second test ‘before being put back on the road in the name of the new owner’, in other words, ‘after the car has been registered’. By the same token the requests for a declaration concerning the use of the vehicle and for payment of a fee were also valid. Schloh therefore decided to take legal action. He brought unsuccessful actions before the Belgian Conseil d'Etat and the Fourth Cantonal Court of Brussels (both were dismissed as inadmissible, albeit on different grounds) and then brought the action which gave rise to these proceedings before the Third Cantonal Court of Schaerbeek, in which he sought repayment by Auto contrôle technique of the sums paid in respect of the two tests. As the court of last instance within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 617 of the Code Judiciaire (causes where the amount in dispute is less than BFR 15000), the Cantonal Court stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to this Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: (1) Are Articles 30 and 13 of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning: (a) that a legal provision of a Member State whereby a new estate car which was manufactured in and imported from another Member State and has been placed on the road after undergoing a roadworthiness test is required to undergo a further test several days later because it is an estate car constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports (Article 30); (b) that, where the same provision requires payment of a specified sum for each of the two roadworthiness tests, it creates a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties (Article 13)? (2) Are Articles 30 and 13 of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning: (a) that a legal provision of a Member State under which a new car (whether an estate car or not) which was manufactured in and imported from another Member State and placed on the road and which carries a certificate of conformity is required to undergo a roadworthiness test constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports (Article 30); (b) that, where the same provision requires payment of a specified sum for that roadworthiness test, it creates a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties (Article 13)?