Case C-14/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, Belgium, by order of 8 January 2002 in the case of ATRAL SA against the Belgian State
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European standard, approximation of laws, electrical equipment, interpretation of the law, telecommunications equipment

C 68/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.3.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione
Staccata di Brescia by order of 13 November 2001 in the
case of Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre.S.C.R.L. and Others
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (State Agricultural Market Intervention Body,
A.I.M.A.)

(Case C-13/02)

(2002/C 68/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccata di Brescia
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia Div-
ision) of 13 November 2001, received at the Court Registry
on 17 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre. S.C.R.L. and Others against Azienda
di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (State Agricul-
tural Market Intervention Body, A.I.M.A. on the following
questions:

1. May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?

If not,

2. Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
Article 39 of the EC Treaty (now article 33), in so far as
they do not provide that derogations may be made
from the periods prescribed by those provisions for
the allocation of
for
adjustments and levies in cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to those provisions?

individual reference quantities,

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’E´ tat,
Belgium, by order of 8 January 2002 in the case of ATRAL
SA against the Belgian State

(Case C-14/02)

(2002/C 68/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Conseil
by
European

Communities

order

the

of

d’E´ tat (Council of State), Belgium, of 8 January 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of ATRAL SA against the Belgian State, on
the following questions:

A.

Should Council Directive 73/23/EEC (1) of 19 February
1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States
relating to electrical equipment designed for use within
certain voltage limits, Council Directive 89/336/EEC (2)
of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility
and Directive 1999/5/EC (3) of 9 March 1999 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on radio equip-
ment and telecommunications terminal equipment and
the mutual recognition of their conformity of 9 March
1999 be interpreted:

(a)

(b)

as applicable to alarm systems and networks, in
particular to products of that type which use radio
transmission, commonly known as wireless alarm
systems,

and, if the answer thereto is in the affirmative, as
producing sufficiently significant harmonisation in
that field that national provisions governing the
same field, such as Article 12 of the Law of 10 April
1990 on caretaking firms, security firms and internal
caretaking services and the Royal Decree of 23 April
1999 laying down the procedure for approving the
alarm systems and networks referred to in the Law
of 10 April 1990, must necessarily conform to
them?

B.

In the event that the reply to the first question is in the
affirmative:

Should Article 3 of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of
19 February 1973, Article 5 of Council Directive
89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 and Article 6(1) of Directive
1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 9 March 1999 be interpreted as prohibiting national
provisions which, as do Article 12 of the Law of 10 April
1990 and the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, make the
placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm
systems and networks lawfully produced and/or marketed
in another Member State (...) subject to a prior authoris-
ation procedure relating to components of those alarm
systems and networks which satisfy the requirements of
the directives referred to?

Secondly, should Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 Feb-
ruary 1973, Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
1989 and Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 9 March 1999 be interpreted

16.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 68/7

as establishing the essential requirements,
in relation
to alarm systems and networks, for electrical safety,
electromagnetic compatibility and radio equipment and,
consequently, as precluding national provisions, such as
the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which make the
placing on the market in Belgium of all alarm systems
and networks subject to requirements other than those
established in those Directives?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 12 of
the Law of 10 April 1990 and the Royal Decree of
23 April 1999, which impose a prior approval procedure
for the placing on the market of a Member State of
all alarm systems and networks lawfully manufactured
and/or marketed in another Member State?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as the Royal
Decree of 23 April 1999, which require components of
alarm systems and networks not covered by Community
harmonisation measures to undergo the same tests in an
authorised laboratory as equipment placed on the market
for the first time?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as the second
paragraph of Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 23 April
1999, which require alarm systems and networks lawfully
manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State
to carry a national conformity mark?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect allows a Member State to adopt national provisions,
such as the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which makes
the placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm
systems and networks lawfully manufactured and/or
marketed in another Member State subject
to prior
approval and to tests and specific technical requirements,
merely relying in the abstract on an overriding reason or
a compelling requirement, such as consumer protection
and/or public policy, which the State considers the
Community harmonisation measures do not take into
account or, in other words, without specifically demon-
strating either that the overriding reason or compelling
requirement relied on actually exists or that the Com-
munity harmonisation measures do not already take
that overriding reason or compelling requirement into
account or that the restrictive measure is proportionate
to the aim pursued?

C.

In the event that the reply to the first question is negative:

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 9 of
the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which require
components of alarm systems and networks to undergo
the same tests in an authorised laboratory as equipment
being placed on the market for the first time?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 9 of
the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which make the
placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm
systems and networks lawfully manufactured and/or
marketed in another Member State subject
to prior
approval and to tests and specific technical requirements,
merely relying in the abstract on an overriding reason or
a compelling requirement, such as consumer protection
and/or public policy, or, in other words, without specifi-
cally demonstrating either that the overriding reason or
compelling requirement relied on actually exists or that
the restrictive measure is proportionate to the aim
pursued?

Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 9 of
Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which, rather than
applying the requirement of mutual recognition to the
alarm systems and networks themselves, confine the
requirement of mutual recognition to the tests which
alarm systems and networks lawfully manufactured
and/or marketed in another Member State must undergo
in order to obtain authorisation to be placed on the
market of a Member State?

(1) OJ L 77, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 139, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 91, p. 10.