Case C-197/02: Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, commercial vehicle, free movement of persons, freedom to provide services, traffic regulations, two-wheeled vehicle

C 191/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-195/02)

(2002/C 191/29)

An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Wouter Wils,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Legal Service,
Wagner Centre.

The applicant claims

— The mandatory exchange of the licence on grounds of
lack of space in which to record data is not provided for
in Point 4 of Annex I to the directive: That provision does
not provide for an exchange in such circumstances, nor
does Article 8, which deals precisely with the exchange
of driving licences. Since the directive regulates these
matters exhaustively, it must be concluded that it pre-
cludes a provision which requires exchange under the
terms laid down in Article 25(2) of the Regulations on
Drivers.

— Transitional provision number 7 of the Regulations on
Drivers is contrary to Annex III to the directive: Directive
91/439/EEC does not provide for the recognition of
acquired rights. According to Article 7(1)(a), the holder
of a driving licence must be able to meet minimum
standards of physical and mental
fitness for driving
power-driven vehicles, as laid down in Annex III to the
directive. Accordingly, when renewing the driving licence,
the holder must meet those minimum standards. The
Commission does not accept the argument put forward
by the Spanish authorities that the absence of any kind of
‘grandfather clause’ is due to an oversight.

that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Spain:

(1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.

— by adopting Articles 22 and 24 of the Regulations on
Drivers, has infringed Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439/
EEC (1);

— by adopting Article 25(2) of the Regulations on Drivers,
has infringed point 4 of Annex I to Directive 91/439/
EEC;

— by adopting transitional provision number 7 of the
Regulations on Drivers, has infringed Article 7(19(a) of
Directive 91/439/EEC;

and order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The obligation to enter the driving licence in a register of
Drivers and Offenders is contrary to Article 1(2) of
the Directive: the system of mandatory registration is
disproportionate to the objective it pursues because the
consequences of its non-observance are so severe. Use of
the power conferred by the directive to apply Spanish
rules on duration and medical checks is in no way
hindered or diluted by failure to register. Furthermore, in
order to ensure the effectiveness of a points system or
any system which takes note of recidivism it is sufficient,
for example, for the details of the licence in question to
be recorded upon the first offence.

Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-197/02)

(2002/C 191/30)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/19

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— Declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 9.4, 21.3
and 22.6 of Royal Decree No 2822/1998, under which
motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, mopeds and bicycles
may not tow a trailer or semi trailer, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
28 and 49 EC and Article 11 of the European Economic
Area (EEA) Agreement;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The total prohibition on the use on the road of a two- or three-
wheeled vehicle towing a trailer constitutes, first, an obstacle
to the importation of that type of vehicle from other Member
States or from the signatories to the EEA Agreement. Secondly,
such prohibition, inasmuch as it applies to persons travelling
to Spain in vehicles registered in other Member States, may
constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons
and to the freedom to provide services. The Commission
points out that there is no technical reason to justify the
absolute ban adopted by the Spanish Government which
affects vehicles which fully meet all safety requirements for
their use on the public highway. Nor does the nature of
Spanish roads justify total banning from the road of two- or
three-wheeled vehicles towing a trailer, which also includes a
ban on the use of such vehicles in urban areas and on those
roads (motorways and dual carriageways, for example) which
by their nature have eliminated the very risks highlighted by
the Spanish authorities.

Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against
the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-231/99 (1) between Colin Joynson
and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by Bass plc

(Case C-204/02 P)

(2002/C 191/31)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin
Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by Bass plc, was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 3 June 2002 by Colin
Joynson, represented by B. Bedford, Barrister, instructed by
Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

a)

set aside the judgment appealed against in whole; and

b)

c)

grant the relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings
before the Court of First Instance; alternatively

remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
event

d)

order the defendant to pay the appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
in law:

a)

b)

c)

d)

In holding that the Commission, on the question of
whether a beer supply agreement contributes to an
improvement in distribution, was right to consider only
the effect of possible deliberate price discrimination on
the part of Bass plc and not the poor profitability said
to be the consequence of the system of leases itself
independently of any deliberate price discrimination,

In holding that a failure to specify beers in the purchasing
obligation by brand or denomination leading to the
exclusion of a beer supply agreement from Regulation
1984/83 (2) is,
in the present case, a purely technical
matter which does not prevent
the agreement from
complying with the spirit of that Regulation,

In concluding that an examination of the possibility of a
grant of individual exemption to a beer supply under
Article 81(3) EC can be limited to the application of the
frame work analysis provided by Regulation 1984/83,

In holding that the price differential and the reference
group used to measure the differential can be limited by
reference to Article 14(c)(2) of Regulation 1984/83,