Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
TRANSPORT - COMMON POLICY - POWERS OF THE COUNCIL - EXTENT - LEGISLATION RELATING TO SOCIAL POLICY AND ROAD SAFETY - ADOPTION - LAWFULNESS
( EEC TREATY , ARTS . 74 AND 75 ; REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL )
Summary
IN GIVING THE COUNCIL THE TASK OF ADOPTING A COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 74 , THE TREATY CONFERS WIDE LEGISLATIVE POWERS UPON IT AS REGARDS THE ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE COMMON RULES . REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL , ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLE 75 OF THE TREATY AND REFERRING MAINLY TO THE SOCIAL SPHERE , IS MERELY A PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A POLICY . THE COUNCIL DID NOT EXCEED ITS POWERS BY REGULATING , BY THIS MEASURE , MATTERS WHICH CONCERN THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OF THE DRIVER AND ROAD SAFETY IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE NOT INTERLINKED .
Parties
IN CASE 97/78
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE OBERLANDESGERICHT ( HIGHER REGIONAL COURT ) DUSSELDORF ( SECOND SENATE ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT CONCERNING FINES IMPOSED ON
FRITZ SCHUMALLA , RESIDING AT EMMERICH-ELTEN ,
Subject of the case
ON THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 170 ),
Grounds
1BY AN ORDER OF 6 MARCH 1978 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 24 APRIL 1978 , THE OBERLANDESGERICHT ( HIGHER REGIONAL COURT ) DUSSELDORF REFERRED TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY THE QUESTION WHETHER REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 170 ), IS VALID , IN SO FAR AS IT IS CONCERNED WITH PROMOTING ROAD SAFETY .
2IT APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN ACTION WAS CONVICTED AT FIRST INSTANCE UNDER ARTICLE 7 A ( 1 ) 1 ( C ) AND ( D ) OF THE FAHRPERSONALGESETZ ( LAW ON ROAD HAULAGE CREWS ) FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) AND ARTICLE 11 ( 1 ) OF THE AFORESAID REGULATION , LAYING DOWN THE MAXIMUM DRIVING PERIOD AND THE MINIMUM REST PERIOD RESPECTIVELY , WHICH HE COMMITTED BETWEEN 18 JULY 1976 AND 8 SEPTEMBER 1976 AS A LORRY DRIVER IN TRANSPORTING GOODS OVER A LONG DISTANCE .
THE APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT IN SO FAR AS THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 543/69 ARE CONCERNED WITH PROMOTING ROAD SAFETY , THAT REGULATION COVERS MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THE COUNCIL ' S POWERS UNDER THE TREATY IN THE SPHERE OF TRANSPORT .
IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE , THE NATIONAL COURT ASKED THE COURT OF JUSTICE WHETHER REGULATION NO 543/69 IS AUTHORIZED BY THE EEC TREATY AND THEREFORE VALID .
3AS APPEARS FROM THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL , THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THAT REGULATION IS TO BRING INTO OPERATION THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 13 MAY 1965 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS AFFECTING COMPETITION IN TRANSPORT BY RAIL , ROAD AND INLAND WATERWAY ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1965-1966 , P . 67 ), IN PARTICULAR SECTION III THEREOF CONCERNING ' ' SOCIAL PROVISIONS ' ' .
THE FACT THAT THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION AT ISSUE CITES NOT ONLY ARTICLE 75 BUT ALSO THE TREATY AS A WHOLE INDICATES THAT THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL LEGISLATION , WHICH THE REGULATION IS TO BRING ABOUT IN ONE OF THE SECTORS COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION , IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY DEFINED IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY .
AS PART OF THIS HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL LAWS , THE REGULATION PURSUES A GROUP OF INTERLINKED OBJECTIVES WHICH ARE CONCERNED WITH SOCIAL PROTECTION OF THE DRIVER , ROAD SAFETY AND EQUALITY OF COMPETITION BETWEEN TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS .
4IMPLYING THE ADOPTION OF ' ' COMMON RULES ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE TREATY , SUCH HARMONIZATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY , WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY ARTICLE 3 ( E ) OF THE TREATY AND IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY .
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 74 OF THE TREATY , THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY SHALL , IN MATTERS OF TRANSPORT BY RAIL , ROAD AND INLAND WATERWAY , BE PURSUED BY THE MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SUCH A POLICY .
FOR THIS PURPOSE , IN GIVING THE COUNCIL THE TASK OF ADOPTING THIS POLICY , THE TREATY CONFERS WIDE LEGISLATIVE POWERS UPON IT AS REGARDS THE ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE COMMON RULES .
ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE AFORESAID ARTICLE 74 AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF TRANSPORT , THE COUNCIL SHALL LAY DOWN , IN ADDITION TO THE RULES AND CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN SUBPARAGRAPHS ( A ) AND ( B ), ' ' ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS ' ' .
ARTICLE 75 ( 2 ) INDICATES THAT THE COUNCIL HOLDS THIS LEGISLATIVE POWER EVEN AFTER THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD .
ARTICLE 79 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THIS POWER IS CONFERRED ON THE COUNCIL IN A GENERAL WAY , IN ORDER INTER ALIA TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSPORT AFFECTING COMPETITION .
5REFERRING PRIMARILY TO THE SOCIAL MATTERS WHICH FORM THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF SECTION III OF THE DECISION OF 13 MAY 1965 , REGULATION NO 543/69 IS MERELY A PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 74 OF THE TREATY AND OF THE AFORESAID DECISION , WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN THE REALMS OF TAXATION AND STATE INTERVENTION AS WELL AS IN THE REALM OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , AND HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF ITS POWERS FOR THE ADOPTION OF A COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY , THE COUNCIL DID NOT EXCEED ITS POWERS BY REGULATING MATTERS WHICH CONCERN SOCIAL POLICY AND ROAD SAFETY AT THE SAME TIME IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE INTERLINKED .
6FURTHERMORE , SINCE COMMON PROVISIONS ENSURE AN IMPROVEMENT OF ROAD SAFETY AS WELL AS THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OF THE DRIVER , THEY CANNOT BUT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ELIMINATION OF DISPARITIES LIABLE TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DISTORTION IN COMPETITION IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR , AND THUS PROVE ' ' APPROPRIATE ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE TREATY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY .
MOREOVER , SAFETY OF TRANSPORT BY RAIL , ROAD AND INLAND WATERWAY FULFILS NOT ONLY THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY BUT ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMON MARKET AS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( F ), BECAUSE AS A RESULT OF BEING SUBJECT TO COMMON RULES IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THE CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE SPHERE OF TRANSPORT .
7FOR THESE REASONS IT IS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION RAISED HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 543/69 .
Decision on costs
COSTS
8THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERED TO IT BY THE OBERLANDESGERICHT DUSSELDORF BY AN ORDER OF 6 MARCH 1978 , HEREBY RULES :
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION RAISED HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy