298/84 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber)23 January 1986^noteIn Case 298/84REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the vicepretore di Latina for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court betweenPaolo Iorio, avvocato, Rome,andAzienda autonoma delle ferrovie dello Stato [State Railways]THE COURT (Second Chamber)composed of: K. Bahlmann, President of Chamber, O. Due and F. Schockweiler, Judges,Advocate General: G. F. ManciniRegistrar: D. Louterman, Administratorafter considering the observations submitted by— P. Iorio, plaintiff in the main proceedings,— on behalf of the Government of the Italian Republic, by Luigi Ferrari Bravo, Head of the Department for Contentious Diplomatic Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Marcello Conti, avvocato dello Stato,— on behalf of the Commission of the European Communities, by Jean Amphoux, Legal Adviser, and Enrico Traversa, a member of its Legal Department,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 28 November 1985,gives the following

Judgment

(The account of the facts and issues which is contained in the complete text of the judgment is not reproduced)

Decision

1By an order of 3 December 1984, which was received at the Court on 12 December 1984, the vicepretore di Latina [Deputy Magistrate of Latina] referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty four questions on the interpretation of Article 48 of that Treaty.

2Those questions arose in the context of proceedings between Mr Iorio and the Azienda autonoma delle ferrovie dello Stato concerning the enforcement, by means of an order for payment, of a fine imposed on Mr Iorio for infringing a provision limiting access to certain trains.

3Under Article 3 (2) of Royal Decree-Law No 1948 of 11 October 1934, converted into Law No 911 of 4 April 1935, as subsequently amended, concerning the ‘conditions and tariffs for the carriage of persons on the State Railways’, the railway administration is empowered to lay down special conditions for access to certain trains and certain lines.

4On 17 January 1984, Mr Iorio, an Italian national and an avvocato residing in Rome, boarded Train No 991, an express train of the ‘rapido’ category going to Palermo and Siracuse, at Rome station. According to the official timetable, second-class passengers were permitted to join that train only if they held tickets for journeys longer than 400 kilometres. Mr Iorio held a second-class ticket for a shorter distance. When the ticket-inspector asked Mr Iorio to pay the fine specified for that infringement, he refused to do so and as a result, the railway administration, acting under Article 84 of Decree No 753 of the President of the Republic of 11 July 1980 laying down new rules concerning public order, security and regularity in the operation of rail and other transport services (Gazzetta Ufficiale della Reppublica Italiana, Supplemento ordinario No 314 of 15 November 1980, p. 1), issued an order, which could be executed without any further proceedings, calling on him to pay the sum of LIT 30 000.

5Mr Iorio lodged an objection against that order and claimed that the Italian rules limiting access to certain trains were incompatible with Article 48 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty.

6The vicepretore di Latina, before whom that objection had been brought, decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:(1) Are the provisions of Decree No 753/80 of the President of the Republic and Article 3 (2) of the Conditions and Tariffs of the State Railways contrary to Article 48 (3) (b) of the Treaty of Rome?(2) Does the principle of freedom of movement contained in the aforesaid article of the EEC Treaty also apply within each Member State of the European Community?(3) Does that principle preclude the administrative authority, in this instance the Minister for Transport or the Regional Manager of the State Railways, from restricting the freedom of movement of workers within the country by creating train services admitting only passengers with a ticket for a journey of more than a certain minimum number of kilometres?(4) Is the situation under consideration contrary to any other provision of the Treaties establishing the European Communities or to regulations or other acts having the force of law within the Italian Republic?’

7The Government of the Italian Republic raises doubts as to the admissibility of Questions 1 and 4 since the Court, in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, may not rule on alleged breaches of the Treaty by a Member State or on the compatibility of rules of national law with Community law.

8As the Court has pointed out on a number of occasions, and in particular in its judgment of 30 November 1983 (Case 227/83 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883), whilst it is not for the Court, in the context of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, to rule on the compatibility of national legislative provisions with the Treaty, it may none the less furnish the national court with all those criteria for the interpretation of Community law which may enable it to judge the issue of such compatibility. It may also deduce from the terms of the questions formulated by the national court the factors relevant to the interpretation of Community law.

9It is clear from consideration of the questions referred to the Court that the vicepretore seeks essentially to ascertain whether Article 48 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty, which lays down the principle of freedom of movement for workers, and the provisions adopted for its implementation also apply within a Member State and whether that article or any other provision of Community law precludes the application of national provisions permitting the use of certain means of public transport to be made subject to certain conditions.

10The plaintiff in the main proceedings claims that the principle of freedom of movement must be applied without restriction within each Member State.

11According to the Italian Government, neither Article 48 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty nor any other rule of Community law preclude the regulation of the use of means of public transport. The restrictions which such regulation implies are of a general nature and do not breach the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality.

12The Commission states that Article 48 (3) (b) does not preclude the application of rules restricting access to certain trains on condition that those restrictions do not discriminate between passengers on the basis of their nationality.

13The reply to the questions depends on the scope of the Community provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers, namely Article 48 of the Treaty and the measures adopted under it, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485). As the Court held in its judgment of 27 October 1982 (Joined Cases 35 and 36/82 Morson and Another v State of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723) the purpose of those provisions is to assist in the abolition of all obstacles to the establishment of a common market in which the nationals of the Member States may move freely within the territory of those States in order to pursue their economic activities. Article 48 and the measures adopted for its implementation serve to give effect to the principle of nondiscrimination laid down in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty and are thus intended to give workers established in the different countries of the Community free access to employment available in countries of the Community other than the one in which they are established, without regard to their nationality, by prohibiting any restriction on their movement within the Community, whether in the form of restrictions on access to the national territory or restrictions on free movement within a national territory, which would prevent them from effectively exercising that right.

14Consequently, the provisions of the Treaty and the rules adopted for their implementation in regard to freedom of movement for workers may not be applied to situations in which there is no factor connecting them to any of the situations envisaged by Community law (see judgment in Morson, cited above; judgment of 28 March 1979 in Case 175/78 Regina v Saunders [1979] ECR 1129; judgment of 28 June 1984 in Case 180/83 Moser v Land Baden-Württemhurg [1984] ECR 2539).

15In this case, it is clear from the information supplied by the Vice Pretore that the situation of the plaintiff in the main proceedings contains no factor connecting it to the provisions of Community law concerning the freedom of movement for workers.

16Moreover, no other provision of Community law nor any general principle recognized in Community law precludes the adoption of restrictions on free access to means of public transport within a Member State as long as they are applied without discrimination and are based on the needs of rational and economic organization.

17The reply to the Vice Pretore's questions must therefore be that Article 48 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty and the provisions adopted for its implementation do not apply to situations which are purely internal to a Member State, such as those involving a national of a Member State who has never resided or worked in another Member State; neither Article 48 nor any other provision of Community law precludes the application of national provisions permitting the use of certain means of public transport to be made subject to objective and general conditions.

Costs

18The costs incurred by the Government of the Italian Republic and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Second Chamber),in answer to the questions referred to it by the vicepretore di Latina by order of 3 December 1984, hereby rules: Article 48 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty and the provisions adopted for its implementation do not apply to situations which are purely internal to a Member State, such as those involving a national of a Member State who has never resided or worked in another Member State; neither Article 48 nor any other provision of Community law precludes the application of national provisions permitting the use of certain means of public transport to be made subject to objective and general conditions.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 January 1986.