C-241/86

Mr President, 3. Article 61 of the EEC Treaty states that Members of the Court, the freedom to provide services in the field of transport is to be governed by the provisions of 'the title relating to transport'. It is therefore necessary to begin with those My Opinion on the question referred to the provisions. Court for a preliminary ruling by the Poli­ tierechtbank, Harelbeke, by a judgment of 4 June 1986, is as follows. 4. It is clear that it is pointless to refer to Article 76, which provides that, until the provisions referred to in Article 75 (1) have 1.1. An interpretation of the provisions of been laid down, no Member State may Community law referred to in the question make the provisions governing the subject at is, in my view, necessary only in regard to the time of the Treaty's entry into force less the case where a vehicle authorized to use favourable in their direct or indirect effect the roads in France and complying with on carriers of other Member States as French legislation which was to be used for compared with carriers who are nationals of international transport to Belgium is barred that State. The main reason why that is so is from that country's roads because it exceeds that at the material time, namely August the maximum permitted height laid down by 1985, the Council directive 'on the weights, Belgian legislation. Those were the facts of dimensions and certain other technical the case before the Politierechtbank. On the characteristics of certain road vehicles' had other hand, it is not necessary in these already been adopted on the basis of inter proceedings to consider what the position alia Article 75 (the directive, dated 19 would have been if the intention had been December 1984, was published in Official to import such a vehicle into Belgium and Journal 1985, L 2, p. 14). admission had been refused on the same grounds. Although the Commission has discussed the point, I do not consider it necessary to examine it. 5. Article 3 of the directive — and this seems particularly important — provides that: 2. 2. After making that point clear, the first matter to consider is what assistance is to be found in the provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide services. 'Member States may not reject or prohibit It is true that the Politierechtbank began the use on their territories in international with the free movement of goods, but in traffic of vehicles registered or put into view of the facts of the case, it seems to me circulation in any Member State for reasons more logical to begin by examining the relating to their weights and dimensions question from the point of view of the provided that such vehicles comply with the freedom to provide services. limit values specified in Annex I ... '.

7. It must not be overlooked that, in so far 11. (b) In any event, it may be said that in a as is relevant for these proceedings, the situation like that in the main proceedings, measures which the Member States were where vehicles are merely the means of required to take in order to implement the providing a service, the provisions governing directive under Article 7 did not need to be that sector take precedence. If those taken until 1 July 1986. That date, however, provisions do not give rise to any doubt, clearly represents a final deadline. Each further reference to the provisions relating Member State was therefore at liberty to to the free movement of goods is excluded. take all necessary measures for its implementation as soon as the directive entered into force. Since Belgian law was 12. (c) The only possible basis for already in compliance with the provisions of considering Article 30 applicable would the directive as regards the maximum therefore be an indirect hindrance to the permitted heights, it may be concluded from free movement of goods, namely the this alone that all necessary measures for the movement of goods requiring to be trans­ implementation of the directive in this ported in vehicles prohibited in Belgium. regard had been taken in Belgium. However, it seems first of all extremely doubtful whether Article 30 can really be given such a broad interpretation, including even 'obstacles' of the type described, since, 8. The only conclusion to be drawn from considered realistically, the exclusion of one this is therefore that the special provisions means of transport in the goods' country of relating to transport (the application of export can hardly be regarded as a real provisions other than those referred to is obstacle to the free movement of goods in certainly excluded) afford no grounds for view of the many other means of transport disputing the validity of the Belgian available. provisions at issue and their application to events which took place in August 1985. 13. (d) At all events, if it is considered that Article 30 can have an application to a case 3.9. As regards the 'rules regarding free such as this, it would be necessary to take movement of goods', to which reference into account the possibility that a justifi­ was also made, I accept that it is necessary cation under Article 36 of the Treaty (on to examine those rules because the Politie­ grounds of public security) may be available. rechtbank has asked the Court do so so.

where obstacles in the form of bridges, (but which is not mentioned in its question), underpasses, electric cables and the like a few words will suffice, if indeed it is constantly occur, which may lead to serious necessary to discuss this point. The Court accidents involving high vehicles. will recall that it was introduced into the discussion by counsel for the defendant who argued that the Belgian provision in question impeded competition in so far as 15. It is worth noting that, even in the it gave Belgian haulage contractors a country in which a greater height is competitive advantage because French permitted, a special degree of caution is, as haulage contractors could not use the we were told at the hearing, expressly greater part of their fleets in Belgium. required of those who use such vehicles. We were told that a French legislative provision makes this quite clear. 19. (a) The point here is that Article 85 quite clearly has no direct application in 16. (e) Moreover, the possibility of adopting a situation such as that in the main less drastic measures, such as designating proceedings because the question is not special alternative routes for very high about the conduct of undertakings or asso­ vehicles or placing signposts at critical ciations of undertakings which affects points, cannot be seriously considered. This competition but about the assessment of a solution would be quite impossible because legislative provision. there are not always appropriate alternative routes and because the risk of accidents on such routes would be increased because of their unsuitability for heavier traffic. It must 20. (b) Nor is it possible to see how the also be recognized that road signs might not Belgian State could be accused (possibly be seen so that they are not a sufficient having regard to Article 5 of the Treaty) of guarantee of safety. having infringed Community competition law. As a matter of fact, there cannot be said to be a real restriction on competition because competition exists in any event on 17. (f) It can only be concluded therefore the Belgian transport market between that none of the provisions on the free Belgian undertakings and, to the extent movement of goods affords grounds for determined by the common transport policy, opposing the application of the Belgian also between Belgian undertakings and provision at issue in the main proceedings. transport undertakings from other Member States, including France, provided that they do not exceed the maximum permitted 4.18. On the question of the application of dimensions. Here again, Article 85 cannot Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, which was be invoked in order to challenge the Belgian mentioned in the Politierechtbank's order provisions at issue.