C-60/86

Mr President, particular of Article 2, as amended by Members of the Court, Directive 85/276/EEC of 26 May 1983 (Official Journal L 151, p. 47). That article provides that, as from 1 October 1977, 'No Member State may ... refuse, in respect to 1. By application dated 28 February 1986 the type of vehicle, to grant EEC type- the Commission of the European approval or national type-approval, Communities has requested the Court to or .. . entry into service ... of vehicles, on declare that, by adopting the Road Vehicles grounds relating to the installation on the Lighting Regulations, the United Kingdom vehicles of the lighting and light-signalling has infringed the provisions of Council devices, whether mandatory or optional, Directive 76 / 756 / EEC of 27 July 1976 on listed in items 1.5.7. to 1.5.20 of Annex I if the approximation of the laws of the these devices are installed in accordance Member States relating to the installation of with the requirements set out in Annex I.' lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers (Official Journal L 262, p. 1) and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under the 2. To begin with, a word of warning. In the Treaty of Rome. English text the words 'Annex I' are not followed by the comma which appears in all the other language versions. The parties have taken this as a cue for a series of prop­ ositions, not surprisingly directly opposed, Under the regulations motor vehicles may on the meaning of the provision. This not, as from 1 April 1987, be approved and argument seems to me quite futile. The put into service unless they are equipped presence or absence of a punctuation mark, with 'dim-dip', a lighting device which, the use of which in the various languages is when the ignition is switched on, auto­ different and largely a matter of taste matically increases the intensity of the cannot have the significance which is binc position lamps previously installed but inde attributed to it. I would add that, when without reaching the levei of intensity of the language versions of a Community dipped-beam headlamps. provision do not agree, the provision must be 'interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part' (judgment of 28 March 1985 According to the United Kingdom, in Case 100/84 Commission v United 'dim-dip' increases road safety. This view is Kingdom [1985] ECR 1177, paragraph 17). disputed in numerous quarters. Whether it is right or wrong is, however, not the issue. The case which the Court is called upon to decide is concerned with the interpretation It is precisely on this kind of hermeneutic of the abovementioned directive, and in approach that the Commission bases its

This is still a long way off, but some of the conditions which will make it possible have For its part, the United Kingdom gives a already been established. This is precisely strictly literal interpretation to Article 2. In the case in the field which concerns us. its view the words 'these devices' refer to Here, in fact, after the entry into force of those listed in Annex I and therefore Directive 76 / 756 / EEC and at least as preclude any possibility of extending the regards vehicles intended for export or prohibition at issue to devices which are not coming from other Member States, the mentioned in that annex. Furthermore, far States must refrain from introducing new from being intended to achieve complete technical requirements, whatever their harmonization, the directive was intended nature or purpose. If they did not, the to introduce common rules which, although requirement which a Member State imposes detailed, leave it open to the Member States in its own territory of a device not provided to prescribe other and perhaps stricter for in the directive would prevent the requirements. The non-exhaustive nature of approval (and thus the sale) in that territory the Community rules is confirmed by the of vehicles produced in the other Member fact that there has existed for some time States in conformity with the Community in the United Kingdom special legis­ rules; and the same obstacles would be lation — never contested by the Community encountered by vehicles manufactured in the Executive — for lights and light-signalling first-mentioned State when it came to their devices on long vehicles and ambulances. export to the countries in which that device is not accepted.

intended. This, it seems to me, is enough to achievement of its final objective — the rebut the United Kingdom's interpretation adoption of a Community certificate of of the provision. conformity — is dependent on exact Quite unacceptable, in the next place, is the compliance with each individual directive. argument, put forward by the United Lastly, the fact that the Commission never Kingdom at the hearing, to the effect that contested the United Kingdom's the various approximation directives will requirements for the approval of ambulances become effective only when there is a and long vehicles is of no relevance. It is 'complete' set of rules, that is to say sufficient to point out in that respect that governing every aspect of the putting into additional devices for special vehicles are service of motor vehicles. That argument not covered by Directive 76/756/EEC, as is ignores the fact that the process of harmon­ clear from Item 10.3 of Annex I to Directive ization to which I have alluded is conceived 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 (Official in terms of progression by degrees so as to Journal, English Special Edition, 1970 (I), p. tackle one sector after another and that the 96).

4. In the light of the foregoing considerations I propose that the Court declare that, by requiring manufacturers to equip vehicles intended to be approved and put into service after 1 April 1987, the United Kingdom has infringed the provisions of Directive 76 / 756 / EEC of 27 July 1976 and has therefore failed to fulfil its obli­ gations under the Treaty.