Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.
Date: 2007-03-15
30. According to settled case‑law, the prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to restrictions which is set out in Article 28 EC covers all rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra‑Community trade (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 420/01 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I‑6445, paragraph 25; Case C‑192/01 Commission  v Denmark  [2003] ECR I‑9693, paragraph 39; Case C-41/02 Commission  v Netherlands  [2004] ECR I-11375, paragraph 39 and the case‑law cited; and Case C‑147/04 De Groot en Slot Allium and Bejo Zaden  [2006] ECR I‑245, paragraph 71).
31. In addition, the Court of Justice has already ruled that Article 28 EC precludes the application in intra‑Community trade of national provisions which require, even as a pure formality, import licences or any other similar procedure (see, to that effect, Case 124/81 Commission  v United Kingdom (‘UHT milk’)  [1983] ECR 203, paragraph 9; Case C‑304/88 Commission  v Belgium  [1990] ECR I‑2801, paragraph 9; and Case C‑434/04 Ahokainen and Leppik  [2006] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 20).
38. Although the transfer licence at issue falls within the scope of Article 28 EC, it is clear from settled case‑law that national legislation which constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions can be justified by one of the reasons of public interest laid down in Article 30 EC or by imperative requirements (see, to that effect, Case C‑420/01 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 29, and Case C‑270/02 Commission  v Italy  [2004] ECR I‑1559, paragraph 21). In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Joined Cases C‑388/00 and C‑429/00 Radiosistemi  [2002] ECR I-5845, paragraphs 40 to 42, and Case C‑14/02 ATRAL  [2003] ECR I‑4431, paragraph 64).
39. It is for the competent national authorities to show, first, that their legislation is necessary in order to attain one or more objectives mentioned in Article 30 EC or meet imperative requirements and, secondly, that the legislation is in conformity with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, ATRAL , paragraph 67; Case C‑420/01 Commission  v Italy , paragraphs 30 and 31; and Case C‑270/02 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 22).
40. First, regarding the argument put forward by the Republic of Finland that the transfer licence is indispensable in order to attain the objective of road safety because, in particular, it allows the vehicles at issue to be identified precisely through the updating of information included on the Register of Vehicles, it is not in dispute that road safety does constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a hindrance to the free movement of goods (see, in particular, Case C‑55/93 Van Schaik  [1994] ECR I‑4837, paragraph 19; Case C‑314/98 Snellers  [2000] ECR I‑8633, paragraph 55; and Case C‑451/99 Cura Anlagen  [2002] ECR I‑3193, paragraph 59).
44. Secondly, regarding the argument based upon the need to ensure effective fiscal supervision by means of transfer licences, such an objective being, according to settled case‑law, an imperative requirement capable of justifying a measure of equivalent effect prohibited by Article 28 EC (see, in particular, Case 176/84 Commission  v Greece  [1987] ECR 1193, paragraph 25), it is not disputed that the Republic of Finland is entitled to introduce supervision procedures enabling it to check which are the vehicles that, despite having to be registered in Finland, can temporarily be exempted from vehicle taxes.