Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In Italy, as in every other country with an extensive railway network, different categories of passenger trains exist: there are long distance trains called rapidi, which link the major cities, and espressi, diretti and locali which also stop in the smaller towns or even at all stations. On the basis of legislation going back to 1934, the Ferrovie dello Stato may make access to any train subject to special conditions in order to provide a service rationally and objectively adapted to the many different requirements of transport users.

2. Observations were submitted by the plaintiff in the main proceedings, the Italian Government and the Commission of the European Communities. At the hearing, Mr Iorio admitted, upon reflection, that Article 48 (3) (b) of the Treaty does not concern situations internal to one Member State. In order to show that Community law was relevant to the problem, however, he claimed that the Italian rules should be considered not as such but as a point of comparison with the rules in force in the other Member States, which do not have similar limits on access to public transport services. The principle laid down in Article 48 must therefore be regarded as an appropriate instrument for bringing about a harmonization of the national rules on that subject by removing the existing disparities. I would point out however that such arguments, which might be taken into consideration for the purposes of introducing a common passenger transport policy, that is to say, in regard to a future change in the law, are beyond the scope of the questions raised by the national court.

3. Formulated in accordance with the criteria which the Court, in its previous decisions, has deduced from Article 177, the four questions raised by the vicepretore di Latina may be reduced to one: does an internal rule imposing conditions of access on users of public transport services conflict with Community law and, in particular, with the principle of the free movement of persons.

4. Therefore, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the questions referred to it by the vicepretore di Latina by order of 3 December 1984 in the proceedings pending before him between Paolo Iorio and the Azienda autonoma delle ferrovie dello Stato:

1 Translated from che Italian.