BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Help]
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
17 September 1998 (1)
(Transport - Public service obligations - Application for termination of part of a
service obligation)
In Case C-412/96,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Korkein
Hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court brought by
Kainuun Liikenne Oy,
Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab,
on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June
1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the
concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ,
English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 276), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1), in particular Article 1(3) in
conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
G.F. Mancini, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab, by Ari Heinilä, lawyer
practising in Helsinki,
- the Finnish Government, by Holger Rotkirch, Ambassador, Head of Legal
Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,
- the Belgian Government, by Jan Devadder, General Adviser in the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries,
acting as Agent,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by Allan Rosas, Principal
Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan
Liikenne Ab, represented by Pekka Aalto, legal officer of Linja-autoliitto, the
Finnish Government, represented by Tuula Pynnä, Legal Adviser in the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, and the Commission, represented by Allan
Rosas and Laura Pignataro, at the hearing on 29 January 1998,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 March 1998,
gives the following
Judgment
- By order of 13 December 1996, received at the Court on 23 December 1996, the
Korkein Hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) referred to the Court for
a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the
interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on
action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a
public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special
Edition 1969 (I), p. 276), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of
20 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1) (hereinafter 'the Regulation'), in particular
Article 1(3) in conjunction with Article 4.
- Those questions were raised in proceedings in which Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy
Pohjolan Liikenne Ab, transport undertakings, challenged the decision of the Oulun
Lääninhallitus (Oulu Provincial Administration, hereinafter 'the Lääninhallitus')
refusing to grant their request for partial termination of their obligation to provide
passenger transport on the route for which they hold a licence.
Legislative background
- The Regulation aims to eliminate disparities resulting from obligations inherent in
the concept of a public service which are imposed on transport undertakings by
Member States and liable to cause substantial distortion in the conditions of
competition, while recognising that it is essential in certain cases to maintain such
obligations in order to ensure the provision of adequate transport services.
- Under Article 1(3) of the Regulation, the competent authorities of the Member
States are thus to terminate all obligations inherent in the concept of a public
service, as defined in the Regulation, imposed on transport by rail, road and inland
waterway.
- However, under Article 1(4) of the Regulation, the competent authorities of the
Member States may conclude public service contracts, in accordance with the
conditions and details of operation laid down in Section V of the Regulation, with
a transport undertaking in order to ensure adequate transport services which take
into account in particular social and environmental factors and town and country
planning, or with a view to offering particular fares to certain categories of
passenger.
- Article 3 of the Regulation provides:
'1. Where the competent authorities of the Member States decide to maintain,
in whole or in part, a public service obligation, and where this can be done in more
than one way, each capable of ensuring, while satisfying similar conditions, the
provision of adequate transport services, the competent authorities shall select the
way least costly to the community.
2. The adequacy of transport services shall be assessed having regard to:
(a) the public interest;
(b) the possibility of having recourse to other forms of transport and the ability
of such forms to meet the transport needs under consideration;
(c) the transport rates and conditions which can be quoted to users.'
- Under Article 4(1) of the Regulation, it is for transport undertakings to apply to
the competent authorities of the Member States for the termination in whole or in
part of any public service obligation where such obligation entails economic
disadvantages for them.
- Article 5 of the Regulation provides inter alia that an obligation to operate or to
carry imposes economic disadvantages where the reduction in the financial burden
which would be possible as a result of the total or partial termination of the
obligation in respect of an operation or a group of operations affected by that
obligation exceeds the reduction in revenue resulting from that termination.
- Article 6(2) of the Regulation further provides that decisions to maintain or
terminate a public service obligation or part thereof are to provide for
compensation to be granted in respect of the financial burdens resulting therefrom,
the amount of compensation being determined in accordance with the common
procedures laid down by the Regulation.
- Under Article 7 of the Regulation, there may be attached to any decision to
maintain an obligation conditions designed to improve the yield of the operations
affected by the obligation in question.
- The Regulation entered into force in Finland on 1 January 1994 on the accession
of the Republic of Finland to the European Economic Area.
The main proceedings
- On 21 December 1993 the Finnish Ministry of Transport granted Kainuun Liikenne
and Pohjolan Liikenne a scheduled service licence for the period from 1 January
1994 to 31 December 2003 for the Kajaani-Rukatunturi route (about 275
kilometres). That licence entitles them to transport passengers by bus on that route
in accordance with specified timetables.
- Following the accession of the Republic of Finland to the European Economic
Area and the entry into force of the Regulation in Finland, the Ministry of
Transport requested undertakings engaged in road transport by bus to make
applications to the competent administrative authorities by 1 September 1994
concerning the routes to be operated from June 1995. The applications were to
request the withdrawal of services which the undertakings were unwilling to operate
on passenger revenue alone.
- Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne applied for termination in part of their
obligation to operate the Kajaani-Rukatunturi route, in such a way as to limit it to
the Kajaani-Peranka and Kajaani-Suomussalmi sections. According to the
application, the entire service made a loss. They stated, however, that they were
prepared to continue operating the route and to negotiate with the Lääninhallitus
for a public service contract making public funds available for the section of the
route for which they had applied for the transport obligation to be terminated.
- By decision of 9 January 1995 the Lääninhallitus rejected the application, on the
ground that Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne had not shown in the manner
prescribed in Article 5 of the Regulation that by cutting the workings in question
back to Peranka and Suomussalmi they could achieve an economically better result
than by continuing to operate under the previous conditions. According to the
Lääninhallitus, they were entitled to discontinue the operations in question
completely. Termination in part of the operating obligation, on the other hand, was
not the correct approach in the present case, as the section concerned was to be
regarded as an integral part of the Kajaani-Rukatunturi route.
- Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne thereupon appealed to the Korkein
Hallinto-oikeus for the decision of the Lääninhallitus to be set aside. In support of
their appeal, they referred to the provisions of the Regulation as showing that the
Lääninhallitus was not entitled to refuse to allow them to withdraw the route in
part.
- According to the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus, Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne
are to be regarded as having shown, by means of the calculations they have
submitted in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Regulation, that the section of the
route which they have applied to withdraw entails an economic disadvantage for
them within the meaning of Article 4 of the Regulation, since the reduction in the
financial burden as a result of the partial termination exceeds the reduction in
revenue resulting from that termination.
- That court further states that where a transport undertaking wishes to reduce a
service based on a licence in force, the procedure under the national legislation
consists of first revoking the operating licence on application by the transport
undertaking concerned and then issuing a new licence for the reduced service. That
procedure also makes it possible, before the new licence is granted for the reduced
service, to call for tenders for the old service, if it is thought necessary to maintain
it. The national legislation also entitles the competent authorities to revoke a
licence on its own initiative under the conditions laid down in Paragraph 20 of Law
No 662/1994 on passenger transport.
- The court observes, finally, that to enable new undertakings to gain access to the
sector, organise transport rationally and maintain adequate transport services with
as little public subsidy as possible, and to arrange effective competition for the
contracted services, it may be necessary, having regard to the situation in Finland,
to consider that the competent authorities, without being precluded by Community
law, have either the power to reject an application for partial termination of a
public service obligation which relates to a very small part, from the point of view
of organisation of the transport, of the undertaking's operating obligation, or else
the possibility of revoking on their own initiative, in accordance with national law,
the operator's licence of an undertaking which has applied for partial termination
of its operating obligation where revocation of the licence is necessary for
rationalisation of the service.
- Those were the circumstances in which the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus stayed
proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary
ruling:
'1. Is the regulation on public service obligations (Regulation (EEC) No
1191/69 as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91), in particular Article
4 in conjunction with Article 1(3), to be interpreted as meaning that it
entitles a transport undertaking to have a part, of whatever size, of its
operating obligation terminated, for example, only a certain part of one
route operated?
2. If the answer to the first question is wholly or conditionally in the
affirmative, in which case the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus may remit the case
to the Lääninhallitus for a fresh decision, in order to reach a final decision
in the case the question arises whether it also follows, from the right given
to transport undertakings in the regulation on public service obligations to
have a service obligation partially terminated, that the authorities' power
under national law to revoke a bus operator's licence for the purpose of
reasonable reorganisation of transport is precluded or restricted where the
need to reorganise results from a partial termination.'
Preliminary point
- Since Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne consider that the national court's
account of the national legislation is incorrect, they formulate additional questions
which they claim the Court should also rule on, in order to take due account of
their point of view.
- It should be recalled that, according to the Court's case-law, it is for the national
court to assess the scope of the national provisions and the manner in which they
must be applied (see, in particular, Case C-194/94 CIA Security International v
Signalson and Securitel [1996] ECR I-2201, paragraph 20).
- As regards the additional questions proposed, it should be observed that under
Article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national court, not the parties to the main
action, to bring a matter before the Court of Justice. The right to determine the
questions to be put to the Court thus devolves upon the national court alone and
the parties may not change their tenor (see, in particular, Case 44/65 Hessische
Knappschaft v Singer [1965] ECR 965, at 970).
- Moreover, to answer the additional questions mentioned by Kainuun Liikenne and
Pohjolan Liikenne in their observations would be incompatible with the Court's
function under Article 177 of the Treaty and with its duty to ensure that the
Governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the
opportunity to submit observations under Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court
of Justice, bearing in mind that under that provision only the order of the referring
court is notified to the interested parties (see, in particular, Case C-352/95
Phytheron International v Bourdon [1997] ECR I-1729, paragraph 14).
The first question
- By its first question, read in the light of the second question, the national court
essentially asks whether the Regulation, in particular Article 1(3) in conjunction
with Article 4 thereof, entitles a transport undertaking to obtain partial termination
of its public service obligation.
- It should be noted that under Article 4(1) of the Regulation a transport
undertaking may apply for the termination of all or any part of a public service
obligation, but that no provision of that regulation obliges the Member States to
grant that application, even if the undertaking shows that maintaining it involves
economic disadvantages within the meaning of Article 5 of the Regulation.
- On the contrary, it follows from Article 1(4) and Article 3 of the Regulation that
the competent authorities of the Member States are entitled to maintain in whole
or in part a public service obligation which they consider necessary to ensure the
provision of adequate transport services.
- That interpretation is supported, as the Advocate General observes in points 40 to
45 of his Opinion, by both the objective and the general scheme of the Regulation.
- Consequently, the Regulation does not entitle a transport undertaking to obtain
partial termination of its public service obligation.
- However, as the Advocate General observes in points 48 to 51 of his Opinion, a
decision to maintain public service obligations is subject to certain rules, in
particular those in Articles 3, 6(2) and 7 of the Regulation.
- Moreover, as stated in paragraph 27 above, the maintenance in whole or in part
of a public service obligation is permitted solely in order to ensure the provision
of adequate transport services.
- The concept of ensuring the provision of adequate transport services is not,
however, defined in the Regulation, which merely provides certain factors for
assessing it.
- Thus the second recital in the preamble to the Regulation states that 'the adequacy
of transport services must be assessed in the light of the state of supply and
demand in the transport sector and of the needs of the community'.
- It must also be noted that Article 3(2) of the Regulation provides that the
adequacy of transport services is to be assessed by reference to the public interest,
the possibility of having recourse to other forms of transport and the ability of such
forms to meet the transport needs under consideration, and the transport rates and
conditions which can be quoted to users. Where there are several ways of ensuring,
while satisfying similar conditions, the provision of adequate transport services, the
competent authorities must, under Article 3(1) of the Regulation, select the way
least costly to the community.
- It follows that, where the requirements of Article 3 of the Regulation are complied
with, the competent authorities of the Member States have a wide discretion in
assessing whether ensuring 'the provision of adequate transport services' requires
a public service obligation to be maintained.
- The answer to the first question must therefore be that the Regulation, in
particular Article 1(3) and Article 4 thereof, must be construed as not obliging the
Member States to grant an application by a transport undertaking for partial
termination of its public service obligation, even if that undertaking shows that
maintaining the obligation involves economic disadvantages for it. However, the
only ground for refusing such an application is the need to ensure adequate
transport services. That concept is to be assessed, in accordance with Article 3 of
the Regulation, by reference to the public interest, the possibility of having recourse
to other forms of transport and the ability of such forms to meet the transport
needs under consideration, and the transport rates and conditions which can be
quoted to users. Where there are several ways of ensuring, while satisfying similar
conditions, the provision of adequate transport services, the competent authorities
are to select the way least costly to the community.
The second question
- In view of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second
question.
Costs
38. The costs incurred by the Finnish and Belgian Governments and by the
Commission of the European Communities, 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.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order
of 13 December 1996, hereby rules:
Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member
States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in
transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991, in particular Article 1(3) and Article 4 thereof,
must be construed as not obliging the Member States to grant an application by
a transport undertaking for partial termination of its public service obligation,
even if that undertaking shows that maintaining the obligation involves economic
disadvantages for it. However, the only ground for refusing such an application is
the need to ensure adequate transport services. That concept is to be assessed, in
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation No 1191/69, by reference to the public
interest, the possibility of having recourse to other forms of transport and the
ability of such forms to meet the transport needs under consideration, and the
transport rates and conditions which can be quoted to users. Where there are
several ways of ensuring, while satisfying similar conditions, the provision of
adequate transport services, the competent authorities are to select the way least
costly to the community.
|
RagnemalmSchintgen
Mancini
Kapteyn Hirsch
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 September 1998.
R. Grass
H. Ragnemalm
Registrar
President of the Sixth Chamber
1: Language of the case: Finnish.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1998/C41296.html
