Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 8 April 1992

1 Original language: English.

2 OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1.

3 Council Regulation on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).

4 Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85.

5 See p. 6 of the order for reference.

6 Ibid., p. 2.

7 Ibid., p. 4.

8 As also does the United Kingdom in point 8 of its observations.

9 OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 170.

10 Judgment in Case 97/78 ScbumalL [1978] ECR 2311, paragraph 6.

11 Judgment in Case 47/79 Nehben v Bremen [1979] ECR 3639.

12 Ibid., paragraph 6.

13 See for example the judgment in Case 133/83 Regina v Scori [1984] ECR2863, paragraph 15.

14 Judgment in Nebben v Bremen, cited above, paragraph 7, emphasis added; see also paragraph 4 of that judgment.

15 Judgment in Case 69/74 Auditeur du Travail v Cagnon and Taquet [1975] ECR 171, paragraph 8.

16 Judgment in Case 65/76 Derycke [1977] ECR 29.

17 Exemption laid down by Article 14a(3)(a) of Regulation No 543/69 as amended by Article 1(8) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2827/77 of 12 December 1977 (OJ 1977 L 334, pl)

18 Judgment in Regina v Scott, cited above.

19 Exemption laid down by point 9 of Article 4 of Regulation No 543/69 as amended by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation No 2827/77, cited above.

20 Judgment in Case 79/86 Hamilton v Whitelock [1987] ECR 2363, paragraph 10.

21 Judgment in Case 90/83 Paterson v Weddel [1984] ECR 1567.

22 Paragraph 16.

23 Emphasis added. British Gas is mistaken in referring in its observations (at point 3.23) to the twenty second recital in the preamble which relates to the derogations allowed by Member States under Article 13 and not to exemptions under Article 4 which are covered by the eleventh and twelfth recitals.

24 Judgment in Nehlsen v Bremen, cited above, paragraph 7.

25 See points 3.25 and 4.3 of British Gas pic's observations.

26 Ibid., point 3.26.

27 OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 67.

28 Third recital in the preamble to the aforesaid decision, emphasis added.

29 See in this respect the Opinion of Advocate General Reischl in the case of Cagnon and Taquet, cited above.