JUDGMENT OF THE COURTOF 7 FEBRUARY 1979<appnote>1</appnote>

Commission of the European Communitiesv United Kingdom

"Tachographs"

Case 128/78

1. Measures adopted by an institution — Regulation — Application — Obligation ofMember States

(EEC Treaty, Article 189)

2. Obligations ofMember States — Unilateral action contrary to the Treaty — Failurein the duty ofsolidarity

1. It cannot be accepted that a MemberState should apply in an incompleteor selective manner provisions of aCommunity regulation so as to renderabortive certain aspects ofCommunity legislation which it hasopposed or which it considerscontrary to its national interests.Practical difficulties which appear atthe stage when a Community measureis put into effect cannot permit aMember State unilaterally to opt outof fulfilling its obligations.

2. For a State unilaterally to break,according to its own conception ofnational interest, the equilibriumbetween the advantages andobligations flowing from its adherenceto the Community brings intoquestion the equality of MemberStates before Community law andcreates discrimination at the expenseof their nationals. This failure in the

duty of solidarity accepted byMember States by the fact of theiradherence to the Community strikesat the very root of the Communitylegal order.

In Case 128/78

Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser,George Close, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg atthe office of Mario Cervino, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,

applicant,

1 — Language of the Case: English.

419

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

V

United Kingdom, represented by R. D. Munrow, assistant TreasurySolicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by Peter Scott, Q. C, of the MiddleTemple, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Embassy of theUnited Kingdom,

defendant

APPLICATION for a declaration that the United Kingdom has failed tofulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty and under Regulation (EEC) No1463/70 of the Council of 20 July 1970 on the introduction of recordingequipment in road transport (Official Journal L 164, p. 1),

THE COURT

composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and LordMackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), A. M. Donner, P. Pescatore,M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges,

Advocate General: H. MayrasRegistrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of theprocedure and the conclusions andsubmissions of the parties may besummarized as follows:

I — Facts and procedure

1. On 25 March 1969 the Council

adopted Regulation (EEC) No 543/69

on the harmonization of certain social

legislation relating to road transport(Official Journal 1969 L 77, p. 49).

The regulation secured a number ofobjectives such as the harmonization ofconditions for competition, thepromotion of social progress of workersin industry and road safety. To this endthe regulation laid down provisionsrelating to minimum ages for drivers, the

420

COMMISSION   UNITED KINGDOM

composition of crews of vehicles, thelength of driving periods and daily andweekly rest periods.

In order to ensure that the provisions ofthe regulation were being observed crewmembers of vehicles were required tokeep individual control books.Article 16 of Regulation No 543/69provided that this individual controlbook should be replaced by mechanicalrecording equipment called a tacho­graph.

On 20 July 1970 the Council adoptedRegulation (EEC) No 1463/70 on theintroduction of recording equipment inroad transport (Official Journal 1970, L164, p. 1)

Among the objectives of that regulationis the effective enforcement of Regu­lation No 543/69 and in particular thereplacement so far as possible of theindividual control book by recordingapparatus, to contribute to road safety,to remove hindrances to the free circu­

lation of vehicles in the Community andto avoid distortions of competitionarising from different rules in MemberStates (see in particular the first, sixth,seventh and eleventh recitals in the

preamble).

To this end the regulation provides forthe installation and use of tachographson vehicles used for the carriage of pass­engers or goods by road which wereregistered in Member States, subject tocertain exceptions (Article 3). The instal­lation and use of the apparatus weremade compulsory with effect from 1January 1975 for:

(a) vehicles registered for the first timeafter that date;

(b) vehicles used for the carriage ofdangerous goods, whatever the dateof registration,

at the time of their entry into service.

With effect from 1 January 1978 the

installation and use of recordingequipment were made compulsory for all.vehicles to which the regulation applied(Article 4).

Crew members of vehicles fitted with

tachographs conforming to the approvedspecifications were exempted from therequirement to carry the individualcontrol book required by Regulation No543/69 (Article 5).

Other provisions of the regulation relateto type-approval of tachographs (Articles6 to 13), installation and inspection(Article 14), the use of tachographs(Articles 15 to 18) and transitionalprovisions (Articles 19 and 20). FinallyArticle 21 (1) <appnote>1</appnote> provides that:

"Member States shall, in good time andafter consulting the Commission, adoptsuch laws, regulations or administrativeprovisions as may be necessary for theimplementation of this regulation.Such measures shall cover, inter alia, thereorganization of, procedure for, andmeans of carrying out, checks oncompliance and the penalties to beimposed in case of breach."

The Act of Accession contains a

provision relating to the entry into forceof Regulation No 1463/70 in the UnitedKingdom. Article 133, read inconjunction with Point 4 of Title III ofAnnex VII provides that:

"Provisions identical with those

contained in Article 4 (1) shall apply inrespect of ... the United Kingdom from1 January 1976."

Thus the Act of Accession delayed byone year the initial application of theprovisions of the regulation with regardto the United Kingdom.

On 25 June 1973 the Council adoptedRegulation (EEC) No. 1787/73amending Regulation (EEC) No1463/70. This deals with cases in which

1 — Article 21 was amended by Article 11 of Council Regu­lation (EEC) No 2828/77 of 12 December 1977(Official Journal 1977, L 334, p. 5) and became Article23 with effect from 1 January 1978.

421

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

tachographs conforming to nationallegislation had been fitted to roadvehicles. Moreover in order to encourageinstallation and use of tachographs in theinterests of road safety on vehicles usedfor the carriage of dangerous goods, theperiod during which tachographsconforming only to national standardscould be used on such vehicles was

extended to 31 December 1979. The

regulation provides however that thetachographs in question should havebeen fitted before 1 January 1975 (or, inthe case of new Member States, 1January 1976).

Regulation No 1463/70 was furtheramended by Regulation (EEC) No2828/77of 12 December 1977. This regu­lation in particular authorized MemberStates to exempt certain categories ofvehicles from the requirements of theearlier regulation and deferred theapplication of that regulation in respectof other categories of vehicles (Articles 1and 2). These provisions have the effectof rendering the application of the 1970regulation more flexible as from 1January 1978, the date of their entry intoforce.

2. In a letter of 30 January 1976 to theUnited Kingdom Permanent Represen­tation the Commission's Directorate

General for Transport drew attention tothe fact that Regulation No 1463/70 wasapplicable in new Member States as from1 January 1976 for newly registeredvehicles and for those carryingdangerous goods whatever their date ofregistration. Moreover it asked to beinformed as soon as possible of theaction taken by the United KingdomGovernment in accordance with Article

21 to implement the regulation.

By letter dated 25 February 1976 theUnited Kingdom Representation sent theCommission a draft statutory instrumententitled "The Passenger and GoodsVehicles (Recording Equipment) Regu­lations 1976" designed to introduce avoluntary scheme covering both inter­national and national traffic.

The Commission's opinion on thismeasure, transmitted to the Secretary ofState for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs by letter dated 25 June 1976,declared that a voluntary scheme wasinsufficient for the proper application ofArticle 4 (1) of Regulation No 1463/70.The Commission's letter also requestedthe United Kingdom Government toamend the draft statutory instrument assoon as possible to take account of thepoints made in the Commission's opinionand to transmit the amended draft to the

Commission for consultation in order to

ensure the implementation of RegulationNo 1463/70 without further delay.

On 10 March 1977 the Commission sent

a further letter, to which a reply dated16 May 1977 was received. In that letterthe Government of the United Kingdomconfirmed its intention not to implementcompletely the Community legislationand quoted the measures actuallyadopted.

3. By letter of 21 October 1977 theCommission initiated the procedureprovided for in Article 169 of the EECTreaty.

In its reply of 10 January 1978 theGovernment of the United Kingdomexpressed its intention not to implementthe regulation fully for reasons based oneconomic, industrial and practicalconsiderations.

422

COMMISSION   UNITED KINGDOM

On 15 February 1978 the Commissiondelivered a reasoned opinion inviting theUnited Kingdom to take the necessarymeasures to comply with the regulationin question within two months.

By letter of 14 April 1978 theGovernment of the United Kingdomstated that it would not be practical orpolitic to take the measures requested inthe Commission's reasoned opinionwithin the period mentioned.

The Commission, in pursuance of thesecond paragraph of Article 169 of theTreaty, referred to the Court of Justicethe failure alleged against the UnitedKingdom. The application was lodged atthe Court Registry on 8 June 1978.

On hearing the report of the Judge-Rap­porteur and the views of the AdvocateGeneral the Court decided to open theoral procedure without any preparatoryinquiry.

II — Conclusions of the parties

The Commission claims that the Court

should:

(a) Declare that by failing to adopt ingood time the measures whichremain to be taken to implementRegulation (EEC) No 1463/70 onthe introduction of recordingequipment in road transpon and byfailing to consult the Commission onthe measures in question beforeadoption the United Kingdom hasfailed to fulfil its obligations underthe Treaty and in particular thoseimposed by Article 23 (1) of the saidregulation, as amended;

(b) Order the Government of the UnitedKingdom to pay the costs.

The Government of the United Kingdomcontends that the Court should:

— Refrain from making a declarationpursuant to Article 169 of the Treatyif as in the present case to do sowould not substantially promote the

achievement of the aims of the

Treaty and would or might well onthe contrary tend to defeat theobjectives of Article 2 of the Treatyand distort competition by imposinga wholly disproportionate strain onthe economy of a Member Statewithout corresponding advantages tothe Community.

III — Submissions and argu­ments of the parties

According to the Commission the onlymeasures of application adopted by theUnited Kingdom Government are thosecontained in the Passenger and GoodsVehicles (Recording Equipment) Regu­lations 1977. The British Government

admits that these regulations are only"initial" measures and that they areintended to enable vehicles registered inthe United Kingdom to comply withtachograph regulations whilst travellingin other Community countries.

However, the regulations do not requirethe compulsory installation of tacho­graphs even for international journeys. Infact they provide only for a voluntaryscheme applying to both national andinternational traffic. It is only by reasonof rules applicable in other MemberStates that operators are compelled toinstall tachographs for internationaljourneys.

The British regulations lack anyprovision creating offences and layingdown penalties for failure to install anduse tachographs in accordance withCommunity legislation.

423

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

The British Government cannot, bypleading the risk of damaging industrialrelations and an increase in wage claimsin case of introduction of tachographsand by claiming that the failure tocomply with the regulation for nationaljourneys will not affect significantlyconditions of competition, justify in lawthe failure of the United Kingdom fullyto implement the regulation in question.

The United Kingdom solemnlyundertook to abide by its Treatyobligations, subject to the variousmodifications which were incorporatedin the Act of Accession and amendingregulations by which the special needs ofthe United Kingdom were taken intoaccount.

The Community system would becomeunworkable if a Member State could

reserve the right to decide not to applyin whole or in part a binding Communitymeasure which had been duly adoptedaccording to Community procedure if inits opinion it was more advantageous notto do so.

In accordance with Regulation No1463/70, with the provisions of theTreaty, in particular Articles 5 and 189,and with the Act of Accession, theUnited Kingdom is bound to adopt ingood time all the necessary measures ofapplication after consultation with theCommission.

The Commission feels that in manyrespects the Community legislature hastaken into consideration the needs of the

United Kingdom (in particular theprovision made in Point 4 of Part Threeof Annex VII to the Act of Accession).Moreover the United Kingdom hadample opportunity during the subsequentadoption of amending regulations tomake clear its opposition by arguing thattachographs were unnecessary fordomestic transport. The Communityhowever has not accepted that case.

In these circumstances, any practicaldifficulties of implementation of Regu­lation No 1463/70 by the United

Kingdom cannot be accepted as a justi­fication.

In its defence the United KingdomGovernment denies that it failed to

consult the Commission before intro­

ducing the measures adopted inapplication of Regulation No 1463/70.

On 2 September 1975 the UnitedKingdom submitted to the Commission amemorandum on the serious obstacles to

the compulsory introduction of tacho­graphs under Regulation No 1463/70and sought the Commission's viewsthereon.

Moreover the Commission itself has

stated in its application that thePermanent Representative of the UnitedKingdom sent to the Commission on 25February 1976 the measures proposed bythe United Kingdom. The Commissiongave its opinion thereon and asked theUnited Kingdom to send it an amendeddraft of the measures proposed.

In concluding that in the UnitedKingdom the objectives of the Treatyand of Regulations Nos 543/69 and1463/70 were more likely to befurthered in the form proposed by theUnited Kingdom than in the form soughtby the Commission, the BritishGovernment appreciated that thatdecision was not acceptable to theCommission.

However, in these circumstances itcannot accept that it came to thatdecision without consultation with the

Commission. The practical consequencesof attempting to enforce compulsorymeasures when important sections of theindustry concerned are demonstrating adeep-seated resentment against the

424

COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM

measures proposed cannot be ignored.The United Kingdom believes that thereis a serious risk that labour would be

withdrawn from a critical sector of the

national economy and that the stabilityof the economy would or at least mightwell be jeopardized.

In fact some operators were forced toremove a considerable number of tacho­

graphs from their vehicles. Such circums­tances would place the law-enforcementagencies in an impossible position andwould lead inevitably to a situation inwhich respect for the law would beundermined. The far-reaching conse­quences would be out of all proportionto any advantage which might be gainedby the implementation of the obligation.

The general use of tachographs is morelikely to be achieved without major dis­ruption in the light of experience withthe equipment on a voluntary basis.

The United Kingdom feels that inpractice the objectives of Regulation No1463/70 have substantially been achievedin relation to the United Kingdom, inparticular for vehicles travelling betweenMember States.

In comparison with standards of roadsafety in the other Member States thosein the United Kingdom are more severeboth for international and domestic

journeys.

According to the United Kingdom it isnot easy to see in these circumstanceshow other Member States or the

Community as a whole could beprejudiced by the fact that on certaindomestic journeys the introduction ofrecording equipment is not compulsory.

In its reply the Commission observes thatit has never claimed that the United

Kingdom has failed to consult it at all. Itpoints out however that in application ofArticle 23 of Regulation No 1463/70 (asamended), the Commission has beenconsulted only on partial measures ofapplication. It follows that the UnitedKingdom has failed to consult the

Commission on all the measures

necessary for the implementation of theregulation.The Commission denies that the

objectives of Regulation No 1463/70 canbe achieved by means other than thosedetermined by the specific provisions ofthe regulation in question.Member States are not free to set aside

certain provisions of a regulation —provisions which are binding in theirentirety and directly applicable in allMember States (Article 189 of the EECTreaty) — if they consider that domesticdifficulties are too great to permit of theapplication of the regulation (judgmentof 11 April 1978, Case 100/77Commission v Italian Republic, paragraph21, [1978] ECR 887).

The Commission emphasizes that ingiving an opinion on the measures ofapplication proposed it acted inaccordance with Article 155 of the EEC

Treaty.

It is no defence to a charge of nothaving taken the necessary measures toimplement a regulation to claim that as aresult of its non-application no particularprejudice has ensued to other MemberStates or the Community. That wouldamount to saying that Member Statesretain a residual discretion as to whether

to implement their obligations under theTreaty.

The Treaty contains no provisionmaking it possible to support a thesis ofthis kind. Otherwise no Member State

could rely on legal undertakingssolemnly arrived at, often with the

425

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

greatest of difficulty, being applied inpractice by its partners. The Commissionrefers to the case-law of the Court of

Justice, in particular Case 95/77(Commission v Kingdom of theNetherlands, judgment of 11 April 1978[1978] ECR 863) and to the opinion ofMr Advocate General Reischl in that

case.

The Commission maintains that the

incomplete application of Regulation No1463/70 is by its nature conducive tocausing prejudice. Indeed the opendefiance by a Member State of itsobligation to apply fully an importantregulation is far from being conducive tothe well-being of the Community.Moreover on the commercial level

prejudice is evident.

Finally the Commission states its viewson the request of the defendant that theCourt should refrain from making a

declaration pursuant to Article 169 of theEEC Treaty (see Point II above,conclusions of the parties). It observesthat it is not aware of the existence of

such a power of dispensation. Moreover,even assuming the existence of such apower, the Commission takes the viewthat the letters sent by the defendant andthe utterances of the Minister responsibledo not make it possible to conclude thata serious effort has been made to fulfil

the legal obligations of the UnitedKingdom in this respect.

IV — Oral Procedure

The parties presented oral argument atthe hearing on 6 December 1978.

The Advocate General delivered his

opinion at the hearing on 18 January1979.

Decision

1 By application dated 7 June 1978 the Commission applied to the Court for adeclaration under Article 169 of the Treaty that the United Kingdom hadfailed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty by failing to adopt in goodtime the measures which remain to be taken to implement Regulation No1463/70 of the Council of 20 July 1970 on the introduction of recordingequipment in road transport (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 482), and by failing to consult previously with the Commission asprovided for by the said regulation.

2 Regulation No 1463/70, as amended by Regulations No 1787/73 and2828/77 of the Council of 25 June 1973 (Official Journal L 181, p. 1) and 12December 1977 (Official Journal L 334, p. 5), is primarily intended toreplace the individual control book by recording equipment, commonlycalled a tachograph, designed for road transport.

426

COMMISSION   UNITED KINGDOM

  According to the recitals in the preamble to the regulation the equipment isintended to record automatically driving periods and other parameters of thevehicle's journey, such as speed and distance covered. Its installation and usehave been made compulsory in order to ensure uniform and effective controlof the working time of crews and to improve road safety while avoidingobstacles to the free movement of vehicles within the Community ordistortion of the conditions of competition. The regulation makes the instal­lation and use of the recording equipment compulsory at different dates forspecific classes of vehicle, the most important provision being Article 4 whichmakes this compulsory with effect from 1 January 1975 as regards vehiclesregistered for the first time on or after that date and for vehicles used for thecarriage of dangerous goods, whatever the date of their registration.

4 In order to ensure compliance with those obligations Article 23 (1) of theregulation provides:

"Member States shall, in good time and after consulting the Commission,adopt such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be necessaryfor the implementation of this regulation.

Such measures shall cover, inter alia, the re-organization of, procedure for,and means of carrying out, checks on compliance and the penalties to beimposed in case of breach."

5 Point 4 of Title III (Transport) of Annex VII to the Act of Accessionprovides that provisions identical with those contained in Article 4 (1) ofRegulation No 1463/70 shall apply in respect of Denmark, of Ireland and ofthe United Kingdom from 1 January 1976.

6 It is not denied that provision for the installation and use of the recordingequipment has been made by the British legislation only on an optional andvoluntary basis as regards both vehicles engaged in intra-Communitytransport and those engaged in national transport. On the other hand, theBritish legislation has maintained in force the obligations relating to thekeeping of an individual control book which were abolished by the said regu­lation.

427

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

7 The defendant claims that this arrangement is sufficient to meet theobjectives of promoting road safety, of social progress for workers and ofthe harmonization of conditions of competition. It maintains that theimplementation of Regulation No 1463/70 on its territory is best achieved bythe installation and use of the recording equipment on a voluntary basis,though this may be made compulsory at an appropriate time. It adds thatimplementation of the regulation involving compulsory measures would meetwith active resistance from the sectors concerned, in particular the tradeunions, which would result in strikes in the transport sector and wouldtherefore seriously damage the whole economy of the country.

8 It contends that since, in the case of the United Kingdom, the objectives ofthe Community policy in this field can be achieved just as satisfactorily bythe maintenance of the system of the individual control book as by thecompulsory introduction of recording equipment, the alleged failure to fulfilan obligation is of a purely technical nature and, in view of the difficultiesreferred to, should not be taken into account. Moreover the installation and

use of recording equipment is in practice already guaranteed in respect ofintra-Community transport by the fact that the other Member States havemade it compulsory.

9 Article 189 of the Treaty provides that a regulation shall be binding "in itsentirety" in the Member States. As the Court has already stated in itsjudgment of 7 February 1973 (Case 39/72 Commission v Italian Republic[1973] ECR 101) it cannot therefore be accepted that a Member State shouldapply in an incomplete or selective manner provisions of a Community regu­lation so as to render abortive certain aspects of Community legislationwhich it has opposed or which it considers contrary to its national interests.In particular, as regards the putting into effect of a general rule intended toeliminate certain abuses to which workers are subject and which in additioninvolve a threat to road safety, a Member State which omits to take, within

428

COMMISSION   UNITED KINGDOM

the requisite period and simultaneously with the other Member States, themeasures which it ought to take, undermines Community solidarity byimposing, in particular as regards intra-Community transport, on the otherMember States the necessity of remedying the effects of its own omissions,while at the same time taking an undue advantage to the detriment of itspartners.

10 As the Court said in the same judgment, practical difficulties which appear atthe stage when a Community measure is put into effect cannot permit aMember State unilaterally to opt out of fulfilling its obligations. TheCommunity institutional system provides the Member State concerned withthe necessary means to ensure that its difficulties be given due consideration,subject to compliance with the principles of the common market and thelegitimate interests of the other Member States.

11 In these circumstances, the possible difficulties of implementation alleged bythe defendant cannot be accepted as a justification.

12 Further, as the Court said in the case mentioned above, in permittingMember States to profit from the advantages of the Community, the Treatyimposes on them also the obligation to respect its rules. For a State unilat­erally to break, according to its own conception of national interest, theequilibrium between the advantages and obligations flowing from itsadherence to the Community brings into question the equality of MemberStates before Community law and creates discrimination at the expense oftheir nationals. This failure in the duty of solidarity accepted by MemberStates by the fact of their adherence to the Community strikes at the veryroot of the Community legal order.

13 It appears therefore that, in deliberately refusing to give effect on its territoryto the provisions of Regulation No 1463/70, the United Kingdom hasmarkedly failed to fulfil the obligation which it has assumed by virtue of itsmembership of the European Economic Community.

429

JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1979 — CASE 128/78

14 The Commission has also asked that there should be a separate finding of afailure by the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligation to consult it on thenational measures to be introduced in accordance with the aforementioned

Article 23.

15 In the present case the failure to consult the Commission is part of the failureto fulfil the obligations under Article 23 (1), since the United KingdomGovernment informed the Commission on 1 January 1976 that it did notconsider itself to be in a position to introduce the provisions required by thatarticle. In these circumstances it is not necessary to make a separatedeclaration in respect of the failure to consult.

Costs

16 Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessfulparty shall be ordered to pay the costs.

17 The defendant has failed in its submissions and must therefore be ordered to

pay the costs.

430

COMMISSION   UNITED KINGDOM

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt in good time the measures whichremain to be taken to implement Regulation No 1463/70 of theCouncil of 20 July 1970 on the introduction of recording equipmentin road transport, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil itsobligations under the Treaty.

2. Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

Kutscher Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart Donner Pescatore

Sørensen O'Keeffe Bosco Touffait

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 February 1979.

A. Van Houtte

Registrar

H. Kutscher

President

431