JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
29 April 1999 *
In Case C-224/97,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof,
Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between
Erich Ciola
and
Land Vorarlberg
on the interpretation of Articles 59 to 66 in conjunction with Article 5 of the EC
Treaty and Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1),
* Language of the case: German.
I - 2530
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
THE COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
Κ. M. Ioannou, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
— the Austrian Government, by Christine Stix-Hackl, Gesandte in the Federal
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by Antonio Caeiro, Principal
Legal Adviser, and Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, acting as Agents,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Erich Ciola, represented by Harald Bosch,
Rechtsanwalt, Bregenz; Land Vorarlberg, represented by Peter Bußjäger, lawyer in
the Legislative Department, Office of the Government of the Land of Vorarlberg,
and Martina Biichel, acting head of the Department of European and External
Affairs, Office of the Government of the Land of Vorarlberg, acting as Agents; the
Austrian Government, represented by Christine Stix-Hackl; and the Commission,
represented by Viktor Kreuschitz, at the hearing on 12 November 1998,
I-2531
JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 December
1998,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By order of 26 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1997, the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) referred to the Court for a
preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the
interpretation of Articles 59 to 66 in conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty
and Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21,
and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1, hereinafter 'the Act of Accession').
2 Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by Mr Ciola against fines
imposed on him for exceeding the maximum quota of moorings on the shore of
Lake Constance reserved for boats whose owners are resident abroad.
3 Mr Ciola is the manager inter alia of ABC-Boots-Charter GmbH. In 1990 that
company leased certain land on the shore of Lake Constance. It obtained permission
to establish 200 moorings for pleasure boats there.
I - 2532
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
4 At the company's request, the Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz (the administrative
authority of first instance of the Land of Vorarlberg) addressed to it on 9
August 1990 an individual administrative decision {Bescheid), point 2 of which
stated:
'With effect from 1 January 1996 a maximum of 60 boats whose owners are resident
abroad may be accommodated in the harbour. Until that time the proportion of
boats owned by persons resident abroad is to be progressively reduced. N o new
allocation of moorings to boat-owners resident abroad or extension of expired
rental contracts with such owners is permitted until the maximum foreigner quota
has been reached...'.
5 Under the first sentence of Paragraph 4(1) of the Landschaftsschutzgesetz (Countryside
Protection Law) of the Land of Vorarlberg, any alteration to the landscape
in lake areas and in a 500-metre-wide strip of shore adjacent thereto, calculated at
mean water level, is prohibited.
6 However, Paragraph 4(2) allows the administrative authority to authorise exceptions
to that prohibition if there is a guarantee that such alterations will not harm
the interests of landscape protection, in particular that they will not obstruct views
of the lake, or if the alterations are necessary for reasons of public safety.
7 By decision of 10 July 1996 the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat (Independent
Administrative Senate) of the Land of Vorarlberg found Mr Ciola, in his capacity
as manager of the aforesaid company, guilty of renting two moorings to boatowners
who were resident abroad, namely in the Principality of Liechtenstein and
I - 2533
JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
the Federal Republic of Germany, even though the maximum quota of 60 moorings
reserved for foreigners had already been exceeded.
8 Consequently, as Mr Ciola had failed to comply with the conditions of point 2 of
the administrative decision of 9 August 1990 and had therefore committed an
administrative offence within the meaning of Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Landschaftsschutzgesetz,
he was fined ATS 75 000 for each of the two offences.
9 Since it considered that Mr Ciola's appeal against the fines raised questions concerning
the interpretation of Community law, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof stayed
proceedings and referred the following two questions to the Court:
'1. Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide services to be interpreted
as precluding a Member State from prohibiting the operator of a boat harbour,
on pain of criminal prosecution, from renting more than a specific quota of
moorings to boat-owners who are resident in another Member State?
2. Does Community law, in particular the provisions concerning the freedom to
provide services in conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty and Article 2
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21;
OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), give the provider of the services referred to in Question 1
above, who is resident in Austria, the right to assert that the prohibition issued
in the terms set out in Question 1 by a specific individual administrative decision
(Bescheid) adopted in 1990 should not be applied in decisions of the Austrian
courts and administrative authorities adopted after 1 January 1995?'
I - 2534
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
Question 1
10 By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether the Treaty provisions
on freedom to provide services are to be interpreted as precluding a Member
State from establishing a maximum quota of moorings which may be rented to
boat-owners resident in another Member State.
1 1 It should be observed at the outset that, as the national court has pointed out, first,
the right freely to provide services may be relied on by an undertaking as against
the State in which it is established if the services are provided for persons established
in another Member State (Case C-70/95 Sodėmare and Others v Regione
Lombardia [1997] ECR 1-3395, paragraph 37) and, second, in accordance with
Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro [1984]
ECR 377, paragraph 16, and Case 186/87 Cowan v Trésor Public [1989] ECR 195,
paragraph 15, that right includes the freedom for recipients of services to go to
another Member State in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed
by restrictions.
12 Consequently, Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty apply tó a service such as that which
the company of which Mr Ciola is manager provides, by means of a contract for
the rental of a mooring, to a boat-owner resident in another Member State who
receives and enjoys the service in a Member State other than that in which he
resides.
13 In those circumstances, a restriction on moorings of the kind at issue in the main
proceedings infringes the prohibition under the first paragraph of Article 59 of the
Treaty of all discrimination, even indirect, with regard to providers of services.
I - 2535
JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
14 While the restriction of the number of moorings which may be allocated to nonresident
boat-owners is not based on their nationality, and so may not be regarded
as direct discrimination, it does, however, use as the distinguishing criterion their
place of residence. It is settled case-law that national rules under which a distinction
is drawn on the basis of residence are liable to operate mainly to the detriment
of nationals of other Member States, as non-residents are in the majority of cases
foreigners (see Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice ν Landeshauptmann von
Wien [1998] ECR 1-2521, paragraph 29).
15 To justify imposing a quota on moorings reserved for nationals of other Member
States on mandatory grounds in the general interest, the Land of Vorarlberg relied
at the hearing on the need to reserve access to the moorings for local boat-owners,
as there is a risk of such moorings being monopolised by persons resident in other
Member States and willing to pay higher rental charges. Because of the limitation
of the total number of moorings available, for reasons concerning protection of the
environment, lifting the quota would increase the pressure on the authorities of the
Land of Vorarlberg.
16 National rules which are not applicable to services without distinction whatever the
place of residence of the recipient, and which are therefore discriminatory, are compatible
with Community law only if they can be brought within the scope of an
express derogation, such as Article 56 of the EC Treaty (see Case 352/85 Bond van
Adverteerders and Others ν Netherlands State [1988] ECR 2085, paragraph 32);
however, economic aims cannot constitute grounds of public policy within the
meaning of that provision (Case C-288/89 Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda
ν Commissariaat voor de Media [1991] ECR 1-4007, paragraph 11).
17 Since the Land of Vorarlberg has justified the imposition of a quota on moorings
for non-resident owners not on grounds of public policy, public security or public
health, but for economic reasons for the benefit of local owners, Article 56 of the
Treaty cannot be applied; in those circumstances, it must be ascertained whether
I - 2536
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
the existence of an exception in the Act of Accession authorised the Land of Vorarlberg
to take measures such as the quota at issue in the main proceedings in order
to limit the influx of boat-owners from other Member States.
18 On this point, it suffices to note that Article 70 of the Act of Accession lays down
an express derogation, for a limited time, only for existing legislation regarding
secondary residences.
19 Consequently, the establishment by a Member State of a maximum quota for moorings
which may be rented to boat-owners resident in another Member State is contrary
to the principle of freedom to provide services.
20 The answer to Question 1 must therefore be that Article 59 of the Treaty is to be
interpreted as precluding a Member State from prohibiting the manager of a boat
harbour, on pain of prosecution, from renting moorings in excess of a specified
quota to boat-owners who are resident in other Member States.
Question 2
21 By its second question, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof essentially asks whether a prohibition
which is contrary to the freedom to provide, services, laid down before a
Member State's accession to the European Union not by a general abstract rule but
by a specific individual administrative decision that has become final, must be disregarded
when assessing the validity of a fine imposed for failure to comply with
that prohibition after the date of accession.
I - 2537
JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
22 It appears from the grounds of the order for reference that in a case of failure to
comply with general abstract rules which were not compatible with a fundamental
principle of the Treaty, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof would have set aside such rules
in favour of Community law on the basis of the Court's judgment in Case 106/77
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ν Simmenthai [1978] ECR 629.
23 However, as the case-law to date, according to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, lays
down only the principle of the primacy of Community law over general rules of
national law, that court asks whether that principle also applies to a specific
individual administrative decision that is not in conformity with Community law
such as, in the main proceedings, the Bescheid of 9 August 1990.
24 The Austrian Government submits that there is no reason why the case-law on the
primacy of Community law should be applied, automatically and without restriction,
to specific individual administrative acts. In support of its argument, it relies
on the enforceability of administrative acts and refers in that connection to the
case-law on what is known as the 'procedural autonomy of the Member States'. In
its view, to hold that Community law takes precedence over an enforceable administrative
act would be liable to call into question the principles of legal certainty,
protection of legitimate expectations or protection of lawfully acquired rights.
25 It must be observed at the outset, as the Advocate General does in points 40 to 43
of his Opinion, that the dispute concerns not the fate of the administrative act itself,
in this case the decision of 9 August 1990, but the question whether such an act
must be disregarded when assessing the validity of a penalty imposed for failure to
comply with an obligation thereunder, because of its incompatibility with the principle
of freedom to provide services.
26 Next, since the provisions of the EC Treaty are directly applicable in the legal systems
of all Member States and Community law takes precedence over national law,
I - 2538
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
those provisions create rights for the persons concerned which the national authorities
must observe and safeguard, and any conflicting provision of national law
therefore ceases to be applicable (see Case 167/73 Commission ν France [1974] ECR
359, paragraph 35).
27 Since the essential requirements of Article 59 of the Treaty became directly and
unconditionally applicable at the end of the transitional period (see Case 279/80
Webb [1981] ECR 3305, paragraph 13), that provision consequently precludes the
application of any conflicting measure of national law.
28 As regards the Republic of Austria, it is apparent from Article 2 of the Act of
Accession that the provisions of the EC Treaty apply as from accession, that is, 1
January 1995, the date from which Article 59 of the Treaty thus became a direct
source of law.
29 While the Court initially held that it is for the national court to refuse if necessary
to apply any conflicting provision of national law (see Simmenthal, cited above,
paragraph 21), it subsequently refined its case-law in two respects.
30 Thus it appears from the case-law, first, that all administrative bodies, including
decentralised authorities, are subject to that obligation as to primacy, and
individuals may therefore rely on such a provision of Community law against
them (Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo ν Comune di Milano [1989] ECR 1839,
paragraph 32).
I - 2539
JUDGMENT OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE C-224/97
31 Second, provisions of national law which conflict with such a provision of Community
law may be legislative or administrative (see, to that effect, Case 158/80
Rewe ν Hauptzollamt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805, paragraph 43).
32 It is consistent with that case-law that those administrative provisions of national
law should include not only general abstract rules but also specific individual
administrative decisions.
33 There is no reason why the legal protection which individuals derive from the direct
effect of provisions of Community law and which the national courts must ensure
(see Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame and
Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19) should be refused to those individuals in
cases where the dispute concerns the validity of an administrative measure. The
existence of such protection cannot depend on the nature of the conflicting provision
of national law.
34 It follows from the foregoing that a prohibition which is contrary to the freedom
to provide services, laid down before the accession of a Member State to the European
Union not by a general abstract rule but by a specific individual administrative
decision that has become final, must be disregarded when assessing the validity
of a fine imposed for failure to comply with that prohibition after the date of acces­
sion.
Costs
35 The costs incurred by the Austrian Government and by the Commission, which
have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings
are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before
the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
I - 2540
CIOLA ν LAND VORARLBERG
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Second Chamber),
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of
26 May 1997, hereby rules:
1. Article 59 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a Member State
from prohibiting the manager of a boat harbour, on pain of prosecution,
from renting moorings in excess of a specified quota to boat-owners who are
resident in other Member States.
2. A prohibition which is contrary to the freedom to provide services, laid down
before the accession of a Member State to the European Union not by a general
abstract rule but by a specific individual administrative decision that has
become final, must be disregarded when assessing the validity of a fine
imposed for failure to comply with that prohibition after the date of acces­
sion.
Hirsch Schintgen Ioannou
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 April 1999.
R. Grass
Registrar
G. Hirsch
President of the Second Chamber
I - 2541