CELEX: C2002/068/13
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-16 00:00:00
Title: 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

C 68/6                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.3.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                   d’État (Council of State), Belgium, of 8 January 2002, received
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione                    at the Court Registry on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary
Staccata di Brescia by order of 13 November 2001 in the               ruling in the case of ATRAL SA against the Belgian State, on
case of Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre.S.C.R.L. and Others                 the following questions:
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (State Agricultural Market Intervention Body,
                             A.I.M.A.)
                                                                      A.    Should Council Directive 73/23/EEC (1) of 19 February
                         (Case C-13/02)                                     1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States
                                                                            relating to electrical equipment designed for use within
                         (2002/C 68/12)                                     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
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      European Parliament and of the Council on radio equip-
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                  ment and telecommunications terminal equipment and
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccata di Brescia                the mutual recognition of their conformity of 9 March
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia Div-                   1999 be interpreted:
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-            (a)   as applicable to alarm systems and networks, in
tural Market Intervention Body, A.I.M.A. on the following                         particular to products of that type which use radio
questions:                                                                        transmission, commonly known as wireless alarm
                                                                                  systems,
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                  (b) and, if the answer thereto is in the affirmative, as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or                   producing sufficiently significant harmonisation in
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate                     that field that national provisions governing the
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                        same field, such as Article 12 of the Law of 10 April
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                          1990 on caretaking firms, security firms and internal
                                                                                  caretaking services and the Royal Decree of 23 April
If not,                                                                           1999 laying down the procedure for approving the
                                                                                  alarm systems and networks referred to in the Law
2.   Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                          of 10 April 1990, must necessarily conform to
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                           them?
     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                 B.    In the event that the reply to the first question is in the
     from the periods prescribed by those provisions for                    affirmative:
     the allocation of individual reference quantities, for
     adjustments and levies in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to those provisions?
                                                                            Should Article 3 of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of
                                                                            19 February 1973, Article 5 of Council Directive
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                             89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 and Article 6(1) of Directive
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                            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
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                            in another Member State (...) subject to a prior authoris-
Belgium, by order of 8 January 2002 in the case of ATRAL
                                                                            ation procedure relating to components of those alarm
                  SA against the Belgian State
                                                                            systems and networks which satisfy the requirements of
                                                                            the directives referred to?
                         (Case C-14/02)
                         (2002/C 68/13)
                                                                            Secondly, should Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 Feb-
                                                                            ruary 1973, Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      1989 and Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parlia-
European Communities by order of the Conseil                                ment and of the Council of 9 March 1999 be interpreted
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/7
     as establishing the essential requirements, in relation                  Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
     to alarm systems and networks, for electrical safety,                    as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
     electromagnetic compatibility and radio equipment and,                   tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
     consequently, as precluding national provisions, such as                 effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 12 of
     the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which make the                        the Law of 10 April 1990 and the Royal Decree of
     placing on the market in Belgium of all alarm systems                    23 April 1999, which impose a prior approval procedure
     and networks subject to requirements other than those                    for the placing on the market of a Member State of
     established in those Directives?                                         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-                 Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
     tions on imports and on measures having equivalent                       as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
     effect applies to national provisions, such as the Royal                 tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
     Decree of 23 April 1999, which require components of                     effect applies to national provisions, such as the second
     alarm systems and networks not covered by Community                      paragraph of Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 23 April
     harmonisation measures to undergo the same tests in an                   1999, which require alarm systems and networks lawfully
     authorised laboratory as equipment placed on the market                  manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State
     for the first time?                                                      to carry a national conformity mark?
                                                                              Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
     Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted                 as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
     as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-                 tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
     tions on imports and on measures having equivalent                       effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 9 of
     effect allows a Member State to adopt national provisions,               the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which require
     such as the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which makes                   components of alarm systems and networks to undergo
     the placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm                 the same tests in an authorised laboratory as equipment
     systems and networks lawfully manufactured and/or                        being placed on the market for the first time?
     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                    Should Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted
     and/or public policy, which the State considers the                      as meaning that the prohibition on quantitative restric-
     Community harmonisation measures do not take into                        tions on imports and on measures having equivalent
     account or, in other words, without specifically demon-                  effect applies to national provisions, such as Article 9 of
     strating either that the overriding reason or compelling                 the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which make the
     requirement relied on actually exists or that the Com-                   placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm
     munity harmonisation measures do not already take                        systems and networks lawfully manufactured and/or
     that overriding reason or compelling requirement into                    marketed in another Member State subject to prior
     account or that the restrictive measure is proportionate                 approval and to tests and specific technical requirements,
     to the aim pursued?                                                      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
C.   In the event that the reply to the first question is negative:           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         (1) OJ L 77, p. 29.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 139, p. 19.
     Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, which, rather than
                                                                         (3) OJ L 91, p. 10.
     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?