European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2012-09-06
24. It should be noted at the outset that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under European Union law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself properly against the objections formulated by the Commission (Case C-340/02 Commission  v France  [2004] ECR I-9845, paragraph 25, and Case C-508/10 Commission  v Netherlands  [2012] ECR, paragraph 33).
25. The subject-matter of proceedings under Article 258 TFEU is therefore delimited by the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by that provision. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the FEU Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also in order to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter (see Case C-1/00 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I-9989, paragraph 53; Case C-160/08 Commission  v Germany  [2010] ECR I-3713, paragraph 42; and Case C-508/10 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 34).
26. By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 38(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission must, in any application made under Article 258 TFEU, indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based (see, inter alia, Case C-347/88 Commission  v Greece  [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 28; Case C-456/03 Commission  v Italy  [2005] ECR I-5335, paragraph 23; and Case C-508/10 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 35).
27. It follows that the Commission’s action must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which have led it to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaties (Case C-508/10 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 36).
43. As a preliminary point, it must be observed that, according to consistent case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). The Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, the judgments of 18 November 2004 in Case C-482/03 Commission  v Ireland , paragraph 11, and of 4 February 2010 in Case C-185/09 Commission  v Sweden , paragraph 9).
49. Notwithstanding the discretion which Member States have pursuant to Article 5 of that directive, legislation which does not incorporate the principle of recognition of documents issued by other Member States which certify that a vehicle has passed a roadworthiness test, as laid down in Article 3(2) of that directive, cannot be validated on the basis of that directive and must for that reason be assessed in the light of Article 34 TFEU (see, to that effect, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraphs 67 to 71, and Case C-170/07 Commission  v Poland , paragraphs 36 to 42).
50. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports laid down in Article 34 TFEU covers any measure of the Member States that is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intracommunity trade (see, inter alia, Case C-217/99 Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 16; Case C-65/05 Commission  v Greece  [2006] ECR I-10341, paragraph 27; Case C-54/05 Commission  v Finland  [2007] ECR I-2473, paragraph 30; judgment of 24 April 2008 in Case C-286/07 Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 27; and Case C-443/10 Bonnarde  [2011] ECR I-9327, paragraph 26).
51. In the present case, by requiring vehicles to undergo a mandatory roadworthiness test prior to registration by a different owner, the Belgian authorities make all vehicles which change ownership and have previously been registered in other Member States undergo such testing in a general and systematic way, without taking any account whatsoever of tests that may already have been carried out by those Member States. Therefore, that non-periodic test, inasmuch as it is carried out in addition to roadworthiness tests recently effected in other Member States, the results of which are not recognised, may deter certain interested individuals from purchasing such vehicles coming from other Member States (see, by analogy, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 73, and Case C-170/07 Commission  v Poland , paragraph 44).
53. In that regard, it follows from settled case-law that national legislation which constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions can be justified on one of the grounds of public interest laid down in Article 36 TFEU or by imperative requirements. In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 75, Case C-170/07 Commission  v Poland , paragraph 46; and Case C-110/05 Commission  v Italy  [2009] ECR I-519, paragraph 59).
54. In accordance with equally settled case-law, it is for the competent national authorities to show that their legislation complies with the criteria referred to in the preceding paragraph (see, to that effect, Case C-265/06 Commission  v Portugal  [2008] ECR I-2245, paragraph 39; Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 76; and Case C-286/07 Commission  v Luxembourg , paragraph 37). Such justification can be specifically demonstrated only by reference to the circumstances of the case (Case C-14/02 ATRAL  [2003] ECR I-4431, paragraph 67).
55. In that regard, the justifications put forward by the Kingdom of Belgium relate to the need to safeguard the objectives of consumer protection, protection of the environment and road safety, which, according to the case-law, constitute overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying a hindrance to the free movement of goods (see, to that effect, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 77; Case C-265/06 Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 38; Case C-170/07 Commission  v Poland , paragraph 49; and Case C-110/05 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 60).
59. It is true that, in accordance with well-established case-law, in the absence of fully harmonising provisions at European Union level, it is for the Member States to decide upon the level at which they wish to ensure road safety in their territory, whilst taking account of the requirements of the free movement of goods within the European Union (see, to that effect, Case 50/83 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 12, and, by analogy, Case C-131/93 Commission  v Germany , paragraph 16, and Case C-110/05 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 61).
60. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out in paragraph 54 of the present judgment, it is for the competent national authorities to show that their legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
61. In the present case, although the suitability for attaining the objective of road safety has not been challenged, it is clear that the Kingdom of Belgium does not specifically show the need, in relation to the objective pursued, for the roadworthiness test for vehicles coming from other Member States at the time of their re-registration in Belgium. In particular, it must be noted that the danger to road safety that the presence on the road of a vehicle with defective technical characteristics is assumed to represent can also arise in the case of imported vehicles whose ownership does not change, for which such a test is not required. The same is true of vehicles registered in Belgium whose ownership has not changed, which represent the majority of vehicles being driven on Belgian roads.
62. Having regard to these factors, it must be held that, by making vehicles which were previously registered in another Member State subject to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration in the name of a different owner, without taking into account the results of the roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 TFEU.
The second head of complaint, relating to the obligation to produce a certificate of conformity for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to registration of a vehicle previously registered in another Member State
– Arguments of the parties
73. It follows from the very wording of Article 4 of Directive 1999/37, which provides that a registration certificate issued by a Member State in accordance with the model set out in the annex to that directive ‘shall be recognised’ by the other Member States for the re-registration of the vehicle in another Member State, that that provision does not leave any discretion to the Member States as regards compliance with the principle of recognition of vehicle registration certificates.
74. As is apparent from recitals 3, 5 and 6 in the preamble to Directive 1999/37, the latter seeks to help towards the free movement, on the roads in the territory of the other Member States, of vehicles registered in a Member State by laying down, as a prerequisite for registering a vehicle that has previously been registered in another Member State, the presentation of a document certifying that registration and the technical characteristics of the vehicle, in order to facilitate the re-entry into service of such vehicles in another Member State and to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market.
79. In the present case, the Kingdom of Belgium cannot rely on one of the grounds of general interest defined in Article 36 TFEU or one of the overriding requirements laid down in the case-law of the Court, since it is apparent from the foregoing that, except in the case of temporary registration, Directive 1999/37 does not allow the Member States to require a document other than the registration certificate for the registration of a vehicle that has previously been registered in another Member State. In cases where a matter has been regulated in a harmonised manner at European Union level, any national measure relating thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in the light of primary law (see, to that effect, Case C-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage  [1993] ECR I-4947, paragraph 9; Case C-324/99 DaimlerChrysler  [2001] ECR I-9897, paragraph 32; and Case C-132/08 Lidl Magyarország  [2009] ECR I-3841, paragraph 42).