Snellers Auto's BV v Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer.
Date: 2000-10-12
31 It should be pointed out first of all that, as the Netherlands, Belgian, French, Austrian and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission have observed, the purpose of Directive 94/10 is not solely to clarify the terms which appear in Directive 83/189. It is clear from the title, from the second recital in the preamble to and from the actual provisions of Directive 94/10, that that directive materially amends the scope ratione materiae of Directive 83/189.
32 Consequently, and in accordance with the conclusions reached by the abovementioned Governments and the Commission, it must be held that, for the purposes of determining whether the regulation is to be classified as a technical regulation within the meaning of the Community rules, it is necessary to have regard to the definition of that term set out in Directive 83/189, since the amendment of that definition introduced by Directive 94/10 does not merely serve to clarify the term.
33 The answer to the first question must therefore be that, for the purposes of determining whether national rules, such as the regulation adopted on 9 December 1994, constitute a technical regulation covered by the obligation to notify the Commission laid down in Directive 83/189, the subsequent amendments introduced by Directive 94/10 should not be taken into consideration.
38 Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189 provides that, as regards products such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a technical specification for the purposes of that directive is a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product. Technical specifications for the purposes of Directive 83/189 must thus refer to the product as such; that is, moreover, confirmed by the non-exhaustive list of the specifications concerned provided by way of example in Article 1(1) of that directive.
55 In that regard, it should be pointed out that it follows from settled case-law that restrictions on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty may be justified by imperative requirements such as road safety (see Case C-55/93 Van Schaik [1994] ECR I-4837) and protection of the environment (see Case C-341/95 Bettati [1998] ECR I-4355, paragraph 62), and that it cannot be precluded that national rules which define criteria for the determination of the date on which a vehicle was first authorised for use on the public highway, such as the regulation, may be justified. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is actually so in the case before it.
56 If, having done so, the national court finds that such a rule is justified by considerations relating to road safety and/or protection of the environment, it still remains, according to a consistent line of decisions (see the judgment in Bettati, cited above, paragraphs 63 and 64), to be ascertained whether the restriction on the free movement of goods arising under the contested condition specifically for parallel importers is necessary to ensure road safety and/or protection of the environment and whether that restriction is not disproportionate to its objectives, particularly in the sense that no other, less restrictive, measures are available.
59 It is for the national court to ascertain, in the light of the foregoing considerations, whether in the present case the contested condition is actually necessary to ensure road safety and/or protection of the environment, and whether the resulting restriction is not disproportionate to those objectives, particularly in the sense that no other, less restrictive, measures are available.