Report for the Hearing in Case 60/86
I — Legislative background
Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (Official Journal L 42, p. 1) is a framework directive which envisages that Member States adopt the same technical requirements for motor vehicles either in addition to or in place of their existing laws. According to the fourth recital in the preamble to the directive the harmonized technical requirements applicable to individual parts and characteristics of the vehicle should be specified in separate directives. The directive also introduced a Community procedure for the type-approval of vehicles in order that compliance with the harmonized technical requirements might be checked and that each Member State should be able to recognize checks carried out by other Member States (fifth recital).
This EEC procedure is not yet operational as all the relevant parts and characteristics of motor vehicles have not yet been harmonized by means of separate directives. As a transitional measure, according to the seventh recital, it must be possible to grant type approval on the basis of Community requirements as and when separate directives relating to the various vehicle parts and characteristics enter into force, national requirements remaining applicable in respect of parts and characteristics still not covered by such directives.
Prior to 1973, Article 10 (1) of Directive 70/156/EEC and the separate harmonization directives which had been adopted provided that Member States should base national type-approval (and EEC type-approval when it came into force) for motor vehicles on the harmonized technical requirements, if the applicant should so request.
In order to take account of the fact that the new Member States did not all have national type-approval systems for motor vehicles in the same way as the original Member States, the 1972 Act of Accession inserted a new second indent into Article 10 (1) of Directive 70/156/EEC in the following terms:
As is clear from its title and preamble, Council Directive 76/756/EEC is the separate directive relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers (Official Journal L 262, p. 17). The second recital states that: it is therefore necessary that all Member States adopt the same requirements either in addition to or in place of their existing rules, in order, in particular to allow the EEC type-approval procedure which was the subject of Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers to be introduced in respect of each type of vehicle.
Article 2 (1) of the directive, as amended by Directive 83/276/EEC of 26 May 1983 (Official Journal L 151, p. 47) is worded as follows :
on grounds relating to the installation of the vehicles of the lighting and light-signalling devices, whether mandatory or optional, listed in items 1.5.7 to 1.5.20 of Annex I if these devices are installed in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex I.
Items 1.5.7 to 1.5.20 of Annex I list and define the type of lamps in respect of which the directive lays down conditions. Item 4 of the same annex lists the same types of lamps, stating those which are mandatory on motor vehicles and those which are optional, and giving the installation specifications in both cases. Annex II shows how the type-approval certificate has to be completed in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 70/156/EEC, referring to the same types of lamps.
II — Facts and written procedure
The United Kingdom, by virtue of the Motor Vehicle (Type-approval) (Great Britain) Regulations, 1984, grants national type-approval to vehicles whose lighting and light-signalling devices comply with the harmonized technical requirements specified in Directive 76/756/EEC. It imposes no additional requirements for a vehicle to be type approved.
The national regulations at issue in this case are the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1984 (SI 812 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the regulations) which prohibit the use of motor vehicles manufactured on or after 1 October 1986 and first used on or after 1 April 1987 which are not equipped with a dim-dip lighting device.
By letters of 23 December 1982 and 27 September 1983 to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative, the Commission explained the reason for which it regarded the then draft regulations as incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under Community law and requested the United Kingdom Government not to adopt the regulations. By letters of 22 December 1983 and 3 January 1984 from the United Kingdom Permanent Representative, the Commission was informed of the adoption of the regulations.
By letter of 22 May 1984 the Commission gave the United Kingdom Government, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, the opportunity to submit its observations on the matter within a period of two months.
The United Kingdom Government replied by letter of 21 August 1984, putting forward a number of considerations in support of its view that the measures in dispute did not come within the scope of Directive 76/756/EEC. The United Kingdom Government also suggested to the Commission in its letter that ways of improving Directive 76/756/EEC be discussed by government experts.
On 8 February 1983, the United Kingdom regulations were discussed by the Working Party on Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as the Working Party) with a view to the possible adaptation of Directive 76/756/EEC to technical progress. The Working Party presented a report on the subject in November 1984 which concluded that the dim-dip lighting device, as specified in the United Kingdom regulations, was not an effective solution to the problem of traffic illumination in urban conditions.
In view of these conclusions the Commission considered it impossible that Directive 76/756/EEC could be adapted on the lines of the United Kingdom regulations.
The Commission therefore sent to the United Kingdom a reasoned opinion, dated 17 June 1985, declaring that by prohibiting the use of motor vehicles not equipped with a dim-dip lighting device the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Directive 70/156/EEC and Directive 76/756/EEC, as amended, and requiring it to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months following notification.
The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative wrote to the Commission on 5 November 1985 reiterating the view of the United Kingdom that the requirement in question was wholly consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the directives in question.
The application was lodged at the Court Registry on 4 March 1986.
The written procedure followed its normal course. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.
III — Conclusions of the parties
The Commission claims that the Court should:
The United Kingdom contends that the Court should:
IV — Submissions and arguments of the parties
The Commission argues that the wording of Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC is ambiguous, at least in its French text. It draws attention to the presence of a comma in the French text after the words items 1.5.7 to 1.5.20 of Annex I and claims that that comma could justify reading the words these devices as referring to light-signalling devices in general, and not just to those devices that are listed in Annex I to the directive. Moreover, reading Article 2 (1) in the light of its purpose and context as well as its wording, and, also, in the light of the general scheme of the harmonization instituted by Directive 70/156/EEC, it concludes that the requirements for the fitting of dim-dip lighting devices in the United Kingdom infringe the second indent of Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC.
The Commission further maintains that the essential objective of Directive 76/756/EEC was that all Member States should adopt the same requirements for lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles either in addition to or in place of their existing rules (second recital in Directive 70/156/EEC). The Commission maintains that this reference to the optional nature of the harmonization means that manufacturers can choose between compliance with the harmonized technical requirement acceptable throughout the common market or compliance with the national requirements where they still exist. However, it points out that Directive 76/756/EEC would fail to achieve even this limited ambition of optional harmonization if Member States could impose additional (and differing) lighting and light-signalling requirements on vehicles complying with the harmonized requirements. In this event, the Member States would no longer have the same requirements either in addition to or in place of their existing rules.
The Commission moreover considers that the objective of Directive 76/756/EEC was the complete harmonization of the installation requirements for lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles. That directive does not envisage, either in its provisions or its recitals, that any further harmonization directives would be necessary as regards the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices (although the third recital does indicate that the construction requirements would be the subject of further directives). Moreover, Article 2 itself refers to lighting and light-signalling devices, whether mandatory or optional, listed in Annex I. Annex I therefore lists all such devices which were considered necessary or acceptable on motor vehicles.
Finally, the Commission argues that the obligation not to refuse type-approval and the obligation not to prohibit the use of motor vehicles are intended to be complementary and to achieve the same purpose, they are drafted so that the technical requirements covered by them are exactly the same. It points out that in the case of Directive 76/756/EEC the two limbs of the obligation were contained in Article 2 (1) when it was amended in 1983.
The United Kingdom relies on a literal interpretation of Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC and argues that the words those devices can only refer to the devices listed in items 1.5.7 to 1.5.20 of Annex I. It follows that the introduction of a comma in the French text or in the English text does not make any difference to the plain sense of the words used. In its opinion, Article 2 (1) unambiguously states that the directive is limited to prohibiting Member States from refusing entry into service on grounds related to the devices specifically listed in Annex I. Moreover, the words mandatory or optional refers back to the specific items listed in Annex I. Member States are not prohibited from requiring the installation of lighting devices other than those listed in the annex, including the dim-dip.
The United Kingdom counters the Commission's arguments based on the context and purpose of Article 2 by saying that this involves the assumption that complete harmonization of requirements relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices has been achieved by Directive 76/756/EEC. In its opinion, Directive 76/756/EEC merely lays down detailed common standards for the installation of the lighting listed in the annex. The fact that the directive recites the ultimate objective that all Member States adopt the same requirements in relation to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices does not demonstrate that the objective of this particular directive is to prohibit any requirements for lighting other than those listed in the annex.
It submits that because Directive 76/756/EEC is not complete, Member States are free to add other requirements, such as the installation of dim-dip lighting, to its national type-approval requirements, in the same way as they are free to prohibit use because of the absence of devices not mentioned in the directive. It does not follow from the fact that it has chosen to limit its obligation to grant national type-approval to vehicles whose lighting complies with the specific requirements set out in Directive 76/756/EEC that it is obliged not to prohibit the use of motor vehicles which do not conform with its lighting requirements which are additional to those enumerated in the directive.
Finally, the United Kingdom argues that its interpretation of Directive 76/756/EEC is supported by the fact that Annex I of the directive makes no mention of side-marker lights for long vehicles or of the special light-signalling devices required on police cars, ambulances and other priority vehicles. The Commission has not objected to the side-marker lights required on long vehicles in the United Kingdom nor to the requirement of special light-signalling devices for priority vehicles.
The Commission states in its reply that in its view harmonization is complete as regards the use of motor vehicles for purposes for which they may ordinarily legally be used. It considers, however, that the requirement for vehicles to be fitted with additional light-signalling devices when used for special purposes falls outside the scope of the directive. It contends that side-marker lights for long vehicles are not additional devices required so as to allow a motor vehicle to be used for certain special purposes. The requirement in the United Kingdom that they be fitted on long vehicles is therefore contrary to Article 2 of Directive 76/756/EEC.
The United Kingdom argues, in its rejoinder, that it must be inferred from the fact that no action was taken in respect of side-marker lights that it was recognized or assumed that Directive 76/756/EEC did not apply in respect of lighting devices not specifically mentioned therein. It therefore submits that the Commission has failed to establish that Directive 76/756/EEC was intended to introduce complete harmonization of lighting requirements.
1 Language of the Case: English.