European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62012CJ0043
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2014:298
• Date: 06 May 2014
• Docket Number: C‑43/12
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Recours en annulation - fondé

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

6 May 2014 ( *1 )

‛Action for annulment — Directive 2011/82/EU — Cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences — Choice of legal basis — Article 87(2)(a) TFEU — Article 91 TFEU — Maintenance of the effects of the directive in case of annulment’

In Case C‑43/12,

APPLICATION for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, brought on 27 January 2012,

European Commission, represented by T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by F. Drexler and A. Troupiotis and by K. Zejdová, acting as Agents,

and

Council of the European Union, represented by J. Monteiro and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents,

defendants,

supported by:

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J.-C. Halleux, T. Materne, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Rodrigues and F. Libert, avocats,

Ireland, represented by E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and by N. Travers, Barrister-at-Law,

Hungary, represented by M.Z. Fehér and by K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, acting as Agents,

Republic of Poland, represented by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents,

Slovak Republic, represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent,

Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk and C. Stege, acting as Agents,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by C. Murrell and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by J. Maurici and J. Holmes, Barristers,

interveners,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, A. Tizzano (Rapporteur), L. Bay Larsen, T. von Danwitz, M. Safjan, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Levits, A. Ó Caoimh, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, D. Šváby, M. Berger and C. Vajda, Judges,

Advocate General: Y. Bot,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 June 2013,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 September 2013,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its application, the European Commission requests the Court, first, to annul Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences (OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1) and, second, should it annul that directive, to state that its effects are to be considered as definitive.

Legal context

FEU Treaty

2 Article 87 TFEU, which is part of Chapter 5, concerning ‘Police cooperation’ of Title V, entitled ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, reads as follows: ‘(1) The Union shall establish police cooperation involving all the Member States’ competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences. (2) For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning: (a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information; …’

3 Article 91(1) TFEU, which is part of Title VI, entitled ‘Transport’, of Part Three of that treaty, provides: ‘(1) For the purpose of implementing Article 90, and taking into account the distinctive features of transport, the European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, lay down: … (c) measures to improve transport safety; (d) any other appropriate provisions.’

Directive 2011/82

4 Recitals 1, 6, 7, 8, 22, 23 and 26 in the preamble to Directive 2011/82 read as follows: ‘(1) Improving road safety is a prime objective of the Union’s transport policy. The European Union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. An important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the Union which considerably jeopardise road safety. … (6) In order to improve road safety throughout the Union and to ensure equal treatment of drivers, namely resident and non-resident offenders, enforcement should be facilitated irrespective of the Member State of registration of the vehicle. To this end, a system of cross-border exchange of information should be put in place for certain identified road safety related traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature under the law of the Member State concerned, granting the Member State of the offence access to vehicle registration data (VRD) of the Member State of registration. (7) A more efficient cross-border exchange of VRD, which should facilitate the identification of persons suspected of committing a road safety related traffic offence, may increase the deterrent effect and induce more cautious behaviour by the driver of a vehicle that is registered in a Member State other than the Member State of the offence, thereby preventing casualties due to road traffic accidents. (8) The road safety related traffic offences covered by this Directive are not subject to homogeneous treatment in the Member States. Some Member States qualify such offences under national law as ‘administrative’ offences while others qualify them as ‘criminal’ offences. This Directive should apply regardless of how those offences are qualified under national law. … (22) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 21) on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application. (23) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. (26) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences, where they are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of the action be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. …’

5 Article 1 of Directive 2011/82, entitled ‘Objective’, provides: ‘This Directive aims to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences and thereby the enforcement of sanctions, where those offences are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place.’

6 Article 2 of that directive, entitled ‘Scope’, provides: ‘This Directive shall apply to the following road safety related traffic offences: (a) speeding; (b) non-use of a seat-belt; (c) failing to stop at a red traffic light; (d) drink-driving; (e) driving under the influence of drugs; (f) failing to wear a safety helmet; (g) use of a forbidden lane; (h) illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving.’

7 Articles 4 and 5 of that directive govern the procedure for exchange of information between Member States and the provision of information on the offences concerned.

8 Under Article 12(1) of that directive, Member States were obliged to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 7 November 2013.

Factual background to the dispute

9 On 19 March 2008, the Commission submitted to the Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a directive seeking, in essence, to facilitate the exchange of information concerning certain road traffic offences and the cross-border enforcement of the sanctions attached to them. The legal basis of that proposal was Article 71(1)(c) EC, the provisions of which are reproduced in Article 91(1)(c) TFEU.

10 On 25 October 2011, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2011/82, using however Article 87(2) TFEU as the legal basis of the directive.

11 The Commission published a statement on the legal basis of that directive underneath the text of the directive itself. That declaration (OJ 2011 L 288, p. 15) reads as follows: ‘The Commission notes that both Council and European Parliament agree on the replacement of the legal basis proposed by the Commission, namely Article 91(1)(c) TFEU, by Article 87(2) TFEU. While the Commission shares the view of both co-legislators about the importance of pursuing the aims...