) DEROGATES FROM THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT . ITS SCOPE MUST THEREFORE BE DETERMINED , AS THE COURT AS STATED ON MANY OCCASIONS AND IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 DECEMBER 1979 ( CAS 47/79 STADTEREINIGUNG K . NEHLSEN V FREIE HANSESTADT BREMEN ( 1979 ) ECR 3639 ), WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THAT REGULATION AND TO THE LEGAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS SITUATED .
16 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 543/69 AND FROM THOSE IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATIONS NOS 515/72 AND 2827/77 , WHICH AMENDED IT , THAT , IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION , THE COMMUNITY RULES PURSUE THREE OBJECTIVES SIMULTANEOUSLY , NAMELY THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OF DRIVERS , THE IMPROVEMENT OF ROAD SAFETY AND THE ELIMINATION OF DISPARITIES LIABLE TO CAUSE DISTORTION IN COMPETITION IN THE ROAD TRANSPORT SECTOR . IT WAS WITH REGARD TO THOSE OBJECTIVES THAT REGULATION NO 543/69 LAID DOWN , IN PARTICULAR , RULES ON MANNING , DRIVING-TIME AND REST-PERIODS AND MADE PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM FOR CHECKING THAT THE RULES ON WORKING HOURS WERE COMPLIED WITH .
17 WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT CERTAIN TRANSPORT OPERATIONS MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF REGULATION NO 543/69 AND , HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1463/70 , FROM THAT OF THE LATTER REGULATION , WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE COMPULSORY INSTALLATION OF TACHOGRAPH RECORDING EQUIPMENT , IT IS NEVERTHELESS APPARENT FROM THE FIRST AND FIFTH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 2827/77 THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE COMMUNITY RULES MUST NOT JEOPARDIZE THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED IN THAT FIELD AND THAT THE POSSIBILITY IS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO NATIONAL TRANSPORT OPERATIONS WITH SPECIAL CHARACTERSITICS .
18 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF REGULATION NO 543/69 THAT ARTICLE 14A ( 3 ) ( 3 ) THEREOF IS INTENDED TO EXEMPT FROM THE SYSTEM FOR CHECKING THAT THE PROVISIONS ON WORKING HOURS ARE COMPLIED WITH VEHICLES WHOSE PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM WEIGHT EXCEEDS 3.5 TONNES AND WHOSE SPECIALIZATION IS SUCH THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS IS NOT LIKELY TO BE JEOPARDIZED .
19 CONSEQUENTLY THE CONSTRUCTION , FITMENTS OR OTHER PERMANENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VEHICLE MUST ENSURE THAT IT IS USED PRIMARILY FOR A TRANSPORT OPERATION FALLING WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN BY THE REGULATION . THAT APPLIES BOTH TO VEHICLES SPECIALIZED FOR DOOR-TO-DOOR SELLING AND TO THOSE SPECIALIZED FOR MOBILE BANKING OR FOR THE LENDING OF BOOKS OR RECORDS , WHICH ARE ALSO REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISION AT ISSUE .
20 TO ACCEPT THAT , AS THE DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS MAINTAIN , THE TRANSPORT OPERATIONS SET OUT IN THAT PROVISION MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE COMMUNITY RULES WHEN THEY ARE CARRIED OUT BY VEHICLES WHICH HAVE MERELY BEEN MODIFIED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF CERTAIN GOODS , WOULD OPEN THE WAY FOR PRACTICES LIABLE TO FRUSTRATE