C-419/85
ECLI:EU:C:1987:91
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61985CC0419
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION v ITALY
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 19 February 1987*
Mr President, 4. Under Article 6 (2) of the directive the Members of the Court, Member States may apply to the issue of driving licences the provisions of national law concerning matters other than practical A — Facts and theoretical tests, medical standards and residence conditions. Under Article 9 of the 1. The proceedings before us today once directive, pending introduction of the final more concern the failure of a Member State system the Member States may, after to implement the First Council Directive of consulting the Commission, derogate from 4 December 1980 on the introduction of a certain aspects of the directive. Community driving licence. 1
2. That directive contains provisions 5. The Commission, the applicant, considered that the Italian Republic, the (i) on the harmonization of existing defendant, had not taken the measures national regulations on driving tests; necessary for the implementation of the directive in national law, and on 9 (ii) health standards; November 1983 it therefore initiated the procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty. (iii) the reciprocal recognition of national driving licences;
(iv) the exchange of the driving licences of 6. The defendant informed the applicant persons who change their place of that pending the enactment of legislation it work or of residence from one Member had taken a first step towards the implemen State to another; and tation of the directive by issuing an adminis trative circular. According to the applicant, (v) the introduction of a Community however, while that circular did implement model for national driving licences. Article 8 of the directive, it did not implement its other provisions, in particular Article 6 concerning the issue of driving 3. Under Article 12 of the directive the licences. Member States were to adopt, in good time and at the latest by 30 June 1982, the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary for the implementation of the directive from 1 January 1983. The Member 7. In its reasoned opinion issued on 11 States were, however, at liberty to delay the February 1985 the applicant stated that issue of Community model driving licences insufficient account had been taken of until a later date, but in any event not later Article 6 of the directive, particularly than 1 January 1986. inasmuch as no practical test whatsoever was required for Category A (motor-cycle) * Translated from the German. driving licences and the duration of the test 1 — Directive 80/1263, Official Journal 1980, L 375, p. 1. for other categories of driving licences was
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE 419/85
left to the discretion of the examiner, 12. With regard to the prescribed medical although Annex II of the directive requires standards the defendant states that the a minimum duration of 20 minutes. applicant has criticized a number of details Furthermore, Italian law contains no of its system. Since, however, the minimum provisions preventing the grant or renewal requirements may differ — though not of driving licences for persons suffering substantially — from the requirements of the from certain severe illnesses. directive, it is not sufficient to complain of the absence of a specific provision: it is necessary instead to examine whether the 8. The applicant claims that the Court national minimum requirements are equi should: valent.
13. In so far as is necessary I shall deal with Declare that by failing to adopt within the the details of the parties' submissions in the prescribed period the laws, regulations and course of my Opinion. For the rest, administrative provisions necessary for the reference may be made to the Report for implementation of Council Directive the Hearing. 80/1263 of 4 December 1980 on the intro duction of a Community driving licence the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty; B — Opinion
I — Admissibility Order the defendant to pay the costs.
The date on which the action was brought 9. The defendant asks the Court to:
14. The defendant's submission to the effect Dismiss the action as inadmissible, or in any that in the light of Articles 6 (2), 9 and event as unfounded. 12 (2) the action must be regarded as premature and therefore inadmissible cannot be upheld. Under Article 12 (1) the Member States were obliged to adopt the 10. It takes the view that in the light of laws, regulations and administrative Article 12 (2) of the directive the provisions necessary for the implementation commencement of proceedings for failure to of the directive from 1 January 1983 in implement the directive as a whole was good time and at the latest on 30 June 1982. unwarranted before 1 January 1986. From 1 January 1983 at the latest, therefore, proceedings could be brought against a Member State which had failed to 11. It may be concluded from Articles fulfil that obligation, although only to the 6 (2), 9 and 12 (2) of the directive, says the extent to which the directive already gave defendant, that the Member States are not rise to obligations. obliged to implement the Community provisions regarding driving licences immediately and in full. In the case of 15. It is only in that respect that the Category A driving licences an optional test exception provided for in Article 12 (2), is provided for. Legislation is necessary for under which the issue of Community model the introduction of a compulsory test. driving licences could be delayed until 1
COMMISSION v ITALY
January 1986, has any relevance. The driving licences. Since the reasoned opinion exception in Article 12 (2) is restricted to defines the limits of what may subsequently that point alone; in no way can it justify the become the subject-matter of infringement conclusion that the implementation of the proceedings, it is therefore clear that the other provisions of the directive could also defendant is not accused of a failure to be delayed until 1 January 1986. implement Article 8 of the directive. In that respect the defendant's statements must be regarded as nugatory.
16. Nor do Articles 6 (2) and 9 of the directive cast doubt on the admissibility of the action. Article 6 (2) empowers the Member States to apply to the issue of 19. Furthermore, in the reasoned opinion driving licences provisions of national legis the applicant emphasized the defendant's lation concerning conditions other than the obligation to implement the whole of the imposition of a practical and theoretical test, directive — that is to say, to transpose all of medical standards and the residence its provisions, and not just some of them, requirement. Article 9 permits the Member into national law, and in particular Article States, after consulting the Commission, 6. Neither in the reasoned opinion of 11 to derogate from certain details of the February 1985 nor in the application to the directive. Neither of those provisions, Court is any mention made of incorrect however, can be regarded as placing in implementation of other provisions of the question the obligation of the Member directive. The application must therefore be States to implement the directive within the interpreted as alleging a breach by the period laid down in Article 12 (1). defendant of the EEC Treaty in so far as it has failed to implement Article 6 of the directive in question.
Interpretation of the application
20. In its reply the applicant made it clear that the application is not concerned with 17. It must be admitted that the application the fact that even after 1 January 1986 the is very generally worded, so that it may be defendant does not issue Community model interpreted as claiming that the defendant driving licences. Nor could a reasonable has failed to implement the directive in its interpretation of the application lead to any entirety. Interpretation of the application on other conclusion, since it cannot be assumed the basis of the applicant's statement of its that at the time of bringing these claim and the preliminary procedure gives a proceedings the applicant intended to claim different picture, however. that the defendant had failed to fulfil an obligation by which it was not yet bound at the time when the infringement proceedings were initiated or even when the matter was brought before the Court. 18. It may be concluded from the applicant's letter of 27 August 1984 and in particular from the reasoned opinion of 11 February 1985 that it is not concerned with the manner in which the defendant has 21. Interpreted in the restrictive manner implemented Article 8 of the directive, on which I have proposed, therefore, the the recognition and exchange of national application is admissible.
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE 419/85
II— Substance of the case should be more than 30 minutes, and must not be less than 20 minutes.
22. As a result of what was stated during the written procedure and at the hearing it 27. On the issue of medical standards the is clear that more than four years after the defendant made no statement in the written directive in question should have been procedure, and at the hearing its remarks implemented the defendant has not fulfilled were extremely unclear. In essence it stated its obligations under Article 6. that the applicant had challenged specific details of the Italian system; since, however, Article 6 (1) (a) simply provides that the 23. The applicant raises three specific minimum requirements of a national system points: may not be substantially less stringent than those set out in the directive, the applicant should have shown that the Italian system 1. No practical test is required for Category was not equivalent to that of the directive. A (motor-cycle) driving licences; The defendant did not show that the applicable provisions are not substantially less stringent than those of the directive. 2. The duration of the test is left to the discretion of the examiner; 28. In proceedings against Member States for failure to fulfil their obligations under 3. The defendant's legislation does not the Treaty it is of course for the applicant to make it clear that driving licences are not produce evidence of the alleged to be issued or renewed for applicants infringement. The limits of that obligation suffering from certain illnesses set out in are reached, however, where the Member the directive. State in question is not sufficiently cooperative in clarifying the circumstances, in particular in determining the situation 24. With regard to the practical test for the under national law. The defendant ought to issue of a Category A (motor-cycle) driving have refuted the applicant's assertion that licence, the defendant has conceded that Italian law contains no provisions provision is made only for an optional test. preventing persons suffering from certain It follows that there is no compulsory serious illness from being issued driving practical test. licences or having them renewed.
25. On the question of the duration of the 29. It did not do so: in reply to the practical test the defendant made no applicant's request, in the preliminary stage remarks in the written procedure or at the of the proceedings, for information on the hearing. measures adopted in implementation of the directive, the defendant merely referred to a circular on the recognition and exchange of 26. It must therefore be concluded that the foreign driving licences. In the remainder of defendant has taken no steps of any kind to the proceedings the defendant did not show ensure that the duration of the driving test what other concrete measures it had taken; in Italy complies with the prescribed indeed, it admitted that legislation was minimum. Under paragraph 8 of Annex II necessary and that that legislation had not to the directive the duration of the tests yet been finally enacted.
COMMISSION v ITALY
30. With specific reference to the minimum respect they were 'not substantially less medical requirements the defendant merely stringent' than the Community standards. recited the charges made by the applicant and disputed its assessment of the situation. It did not describe the substance of its 31. In those circumstances I am of the view system; in particular it did not state whether that for the purposes of these infringement the national minimum medical requirements proceedings it may be concluded that the were contained in a circular, in a legislative defendant has not yet adopted appropriate measure or in the bill which had not yet measures concerning driving tests and been enacted, and it did not show in what medical standards.
C — Conclusion
32. I therefore propose that the Court should declare that the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty inasmuch as it has not adopted, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the implementation of Article 6 (1) (a) of Council Directive 80/1263 of 4 December 1980 on the introduction of a Community driving licence and should order the defendant to pay the costs.