Case C-170/07: Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import restriction, intra-EU trade, motor car, quantitative restriction, roadworthiness tests, traffic regulations

C 183/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

similar domestic goods constitute a restriction on intra-Com-
munity trade for the purposes of Article 28 EC.

(Case C-170/07)

(2007/C 183/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Hottiaux and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by introducing a requirement for roadworthi-
ness tests of imported second-hand vehicles prior to their
registration whereas there is no such requirement in relation
to domestic vehicles in the same circumstances, the Republic
of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28
EC;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 28 EC prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports
between Member States and all measures having equivalent
in the absence of
effect. According to the Court's case-law,
harmonisation ‘all
trading rules enacted by Member States
which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or
potentially,
intra-Community trade are to be considered as
measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions’.

A measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction
constitutes an infringement of Article 28 EC unless it is justified
on the basis of Article 30 EC or, in accordance with the Court's
case-law, by mandatory requirements in the public interest.

The Polish Law on Road Traffic imposes an obligation to carry
out a roadworthiness test prior to the first registration of vehi-
cles in Poland. Since new vehicles are exempted from that obli-
in practice only second-hand vehicles imported from
gation,
other Member States are subject to mandatory roadworthiness
tests prior to their registration in Poland. Consequently, that
requirement constitutes a measure discriminating against vehi-
imported from other Member States compared with
cles
domestic vehicles. Moreover, the above conclusion is supported
by the fact that the Polish authorities charge for the roadworthi-
ness tests carried out a significant fee almost twice as high as
the fee for periodical tests for a domestic vehicle of the same
category. In the Commission's view, the Polish authorities have
not put forward a legitimate justification for such differentiation.
In accordance with settled case-law, national provisions which
impose additional costs on imported goods in comparison with

In order to justify such a measure, the Member State must
prove that it is necessary and proportionate to the objective
pursued. In accordance with Article 30 EC, such a measure
cannot constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a
disguised restriction on trade between Member States.

In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the fact that a
vehicle has been used on the public highway since the last road-
worthiness test may justify, on grounds of the protection of
health and life of humans, a test carried out at the time of the
vehicle's registration establishing that it has not been involved in
an accident and is in a good mechanical condition. The Member
States may therefore subject vehicles to roadworthiness tests
prior to registration, provided however that such a requirement
does not constitute arbitrary discrimination, that is to say it
concerns both vehicles imported from other Member States and
domestic vehicles in a similar position. However, if provisions of
national law do not require roadworthiness tests for domestic
vehicles submitted for registration in the same circumstances as
vehicles imported from other Member States, such provisions
must be found to constitute arbitrary discrimination.

Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that the Polish
provisions restricting intra-Community trade cannot be justified
by the protection of health and life of humans, because they do
not meet the requirement that they be necessary and propor-
tionate.

the Member States,

First, if the roadworthiness of a vehicle has been tested in one
of
the principle of equivalence and of
mutual recognition resulting from Article 3(2) of Directive
96/96/EC obliges all Member States to recognise a certificate
issued in such circumstances as if they had issued it themselves.
The Commission has to reject the argument of the Polish autho-
rities that periodical roadworthiness tests carried out in another
In the Commission's view,
Member State are immaterial.
marking in the registration documents the fact that the vehicle's
registration has been cancelled is not intended to invalidate all
roadworthiness tests and other certificates concerning the vehi-
cle's mechanical state and, moreover, the cancellation of a vehi-
cle's registration has nothing to do with its mechanical state.
Second, selective checking would be more proportionate to safe-
guarding road safety, because it would concern only those vehi-
cles imported from other Member States in relation to which
there is reason to suppose that they endanger road safety or the
environment. Third, the Commission does not agree with the
Polish Government that roadworthiness tests are necessary for
the identification of vehicles and the fight against crime. In the
Commission's view, the carrying out of thorough roadworthi-
ness tests which cost almost twice as much as periodical road-
worthiness tests is not necessary for determining the category,
sub-category, intended use or type of a vehicle. That information
is usually already contained in the vehicle documents submitted

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/17

to the Polish registration bodies. Fourth, the Commission rejects
the Polish authorities' argument concerning the Vienna Conven-
tion. In the Commission's view, a lack of appropriate rules at
international level has no effect on the Republic of Poland's obli-
gations in relation to the Community.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Landau/Isar (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Criminal
proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2007 — Krystyna
Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-221/07)

(2007/C 183/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Question referred

Are the benefit restrictions laid down in German social compen-
sation law under Paragraph 64e of the Bundesversorgungsgesetz
(Federal Law on war pensions — BVG) for those entitled to
pensions who have their residence or habitual abode in Poland
as a new EU accession state consistent with higher-ranking
Community law,
from the point of view of
freedom of movement?

in particular

(Case C-225/07)

(2007/C 183/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Landau/Isar

Party to the main proceedings

Rainer Günther Möginger

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b), 8(2) and (4) and 9 of Council
Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1999 on driving licences (1)
as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997
(hereinafter: the directive) to be interpreted as meaning

that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise
a driving licence issued by another Member State even where
its holder has, in the first Member State, been subject to a
measure withdrawing or cancelling the right to drive issued
by that Member State and where a temporary ban on
obtaining a new right to drive, with which that measure is
coupled, had not yet expired before the date on which the
driving licence was issued by the other Member State?

2. If so:

Is that directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prin-
ciple of mutual recognition may be ignored by the courts
and authorities of the first Member State where, on grounds
of abuse of a right, the holder of the right to drive is barred
in a specific case from relying on the right to drive acquired
in another EU Member State, in particular where an overall
appraisal of the objective circumstances shows that, despite
formal observance of the conditions laid down by the Com-
munity rules, the purpose of the rules in the directive has
not been achieved and where there is a subjective element
consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the
Community rules, in the form of recognition of the right to
drive acquired in another EU Member State, by arbitrarily
creating the conditions laid down for acquiring it,