60/86 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court12 July 1988^noteIn Case 60/86Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. White, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G. Kremlis, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,vUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by B. McHenry, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 28 boulevard Royal,THE COURTcomposed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, acting as President, O. Due and G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias (Presidents of Chambers), T. Koopmans, C. Kakouris, T. F. O'Higgins and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges,Advocate General: G. F. ManciniRegistrar: B. Pastor, Administratorhaving regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing of 15 October 1987,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 23 February 1988,gives the following

Judgment

1By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 March 1986 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by prohibiting, in breach of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers, the use of motor vehicles manufactured after 1 October 1986 and put into service after 1 April 1987 which are not equipped with dim-dip lighting devices, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

2A dim-dip device as referred to in the application is defined by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1984 (Statutory Instrument 1984, No 821) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the national regulations') as a device which satisfies the requirements laid down in Part I of Schedule 3 to the national regulations. Under those requirements, whenever the obligatory front lamps of the motor vehicle are switched on and either the engine is running or the ignition switch is in the driving position the dim-dip device will switch on automatically and simultaneously either the dipped-beam headlamps at a reduced intensity or two separate ’town lamps'. It is clear from the documents before the Court that the dim-dip lighting device may either be physically separate from the other devices or be incorporated in them.

3Regulation 16 of the national regulations in question prohibits the use on the roads of the United Kingdom of any motor vehicle put into service after 1 April 1987 and manufactured after 1 October 1986 which is not equipped with such a lighting device.

4Directive 76/756/EEC on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles is one of the separate directives envisaged by the framework directive, namely 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 1970 L 42, p. 1). Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 83/276/EEC of 26 May 1983 (Official Journal 1983, L 151, p. 47), provides as follows:‘No Member State may:refuse, in respect of a type of vehicle, to grant EEC type-approval or national type-approval, orrefuse or prohibit the sale, registration, entry into service or use of vehicles,on grounds relating to the installation on 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.’

5Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the national legislation, the course of the procedure and the submissions and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

6The Commission maintains that by virtue of Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC it is not possible to prohibit the use of a motor vehicle on grounds connected with the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices if such devices are installed in the vehicle in question in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex I to the directive. It states 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 are drafted in such a way that the technical requirements are exactly the same.

7The United Kingdom, on the other hand, relies on a literal interpretation of Article 2 (1) of Directive 76/756/EEC and maintains that the words ‘these devices’ can refer only to the devices listed in Items 1.5.7 to 1.5.20 of Annex I to the directive. It takes the view that Directive 76/756/EEC does not contain an exhaustive harmonization of the requirements relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices with the result that the Member States have the power to lay down additional requirements such as the installation of dim-dip lighting devices.

8It must be pointed out in the first place that the fourth recital in the preamble to the framework directive, namely Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, states that ‘the harmonized technical requirements applicable to individual parts and characteristics of a vehicle should be specified in separate directives’. In addition, Directive 70/156/EEC envisages the introduction of a Community type-approval procedure for each vehicle type in order that compliance with the harmonized technical requirements can be checked once specifications for all the individual parts and characteristics of the vehicle have been laid down in separate directives. Such a procedure has not yet been introduced because specifications relating to some individual parts and characteristics of the vehicle have not been laid down in any separate directive. However, in the mean time and as a transitional measure, Directive 70/156/EEC provides that type-approval may be granted on the basis of the 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’ (seventh recital and Article 10).

9As has already been stated, Directive 76/756/EEC is the separate directive, within the meaning of Directive 70/156/EEC, which specifies the harmonized technical requirements applicable to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers. Whilst the third recital in the preamble to Directive 76/756/EEC states that common requirements for the construction of lighting and light-signalling devices are to be the subject of further special directives, that is not the case as regards the installation of such devices. The wording of Article 2 (1), which refers to ‘the lighting and light-signalling devices, whether mandatory or optional’, listed in Annex I, implies that Annex I lists all the lighting and light-signalling devices which were considered to be necessary or acceptable on motor vehicles (Items 1.5.1 to 1.5.6 specify solely certain ways of fixing these types of lamps).

10It is clear from the documents before the Court that the reason for which dim-dip devices were not included in the provisions, even as optional devices, is that the technical committee of national experts did not consider them acceptable given the state of technical progress at the time. In addition, it was not considered appropriate to adapt Directive 76/756/EEC, after its entry into force, so as to take account of technical progress in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Directive 70/156/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/756/EEC, by bringing dim-dip devices within the scope of the latter directive.

11Such an interpretation of the exhaustive nature of the list of lighting and light-signalling devices set out in Annex I to the directive is consistent with the purpose of Directive 70/156/EEC which is to reduce, and even eliminate, hindrances to trade within the Community resulting from the fact that mandatory technical requirements differ from one Member State to another (see the first and second recitals in the preamble to Directive 70/156/EEC). In the context of Directive 76/756/EEC that objective is reflected in the obligation imposed on the Member States to adopt the same requirements ‘either in addition to or in place of their existing rules’(second recital).

12It follows that the Member States cannot unilaterally require manufacturers who have complied with the harmonized technical requirements set out in Directive 76/756/EEC to comply with a requirement which is not imposed by that directive, since motor vehicles complying with the technical requirements laid down therein must be able to move freely within the common market.

13It must therefore be declared that, by prohibiting, in breach of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976, the use of motor vehicles manufactured after 1 October 1986 and put into service after 1 April 1987 which are not equipped with a dim-dip device, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

Costs

14According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the defendant has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURThereby:

(1).Declares that, by prohibiting, in breach of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of light and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers, the use of motor vehicles manufactured after 1 October 1986 and put into service after 1 April 1987 which are not equipped with a dim-dip lighting device, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

(2).Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 July 1988.

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (60/86)

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections

Judgment

Costs

Operative part