(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Approximation of laws– Directive 97/23

20By its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article4(1)(1.1) of, and AnnexI to, Directive 97/23, read in conjunction with Article2 of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order to ensure the safety of persons, in particular against earthquakes, imposes certain methods of installation for pressure equipment, including equipment bearing the CE marking.

21In the first place, it must be noted, firstly, that Article1(1) of Directive 97/23 provides that the directive applies to the design, manufacture and conformity assessment of pressure equipment and, secondly, that Article3 of that directive provides that that equipment must satisfy certain essential technical requirements set out in AnnexI to that directive.

22It is thus apparent from those provisions, read in the light of recital6 of Directive 97/23, that that directive aims to harmonise the essential requirements for the design and manufacture of pressure equipment, with regard to the risk due to pressure, so that that equipment can have the CE marking (see, by analogy, judgment of 17December 2020, Germany v Commission, C‑475/19P and C‑688/19P, EU:C:2020:1036, paragraph70) and not the conditions for the installation of such equipment.

23It is true that AnnexI to Directive 97/23, which lists the essential technical requirements which pressure equipment must meet pursuant to Article3 of that directive, in the section entitled ‘General’, states, in point1.1, that ‘pressure equipment must be designed, manufactured and checked, and if applicable equipped and installed, in such a way as to ensure its safety’. However, in that provision, reference is made to the conditions for the installation of that equipment only by way of reference to the other applicable texts in that area. That annex therefore does not lay down any specific conditions for the installation of that equipment.

24The same is true of the reference to normal conditions of installation and use in Article2(1) of Directive 97/23, which requires Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the pressure equipment may be placed on the market and put into service only if it does not endanger the health and safety of persons ‘when properly installed and maintained and used for [its] purpose’. Nor does that provision lay down any condition concerning the installation of that equipment.

25As regards, in the second place, Article4(1)(1.1) of Directive 97/23, it is apparent from that provision that Member States may not, on grounds of the hazards due to pressure, prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market or putting into service, under the conditions specified by the manufacturer, of pressure equipment which complies with the provisions of that directive and bears the CE marking so as not to undermine the objective of harmonising the national provisions pursued by that directive with regard to those risks. However, that provision does not prohibit Member States from taking measures to prevent risks other than those due to pressure, so that such equipment can be placed on the market and put into service without compromising the health and safety of persons.

26In the third place, Article2(2) of Directive 97/23 expressly provides that the provisions of that directive do not affect Member States’ entitlement to lay down, with due regard to the provisions of the Treaty, such requirements as they may deem necessary to ensure that persons are protected, in particular during use of the pressure equipment, provided that that does not mean modifications to such equipment or assemblies when they comply with that directive.

27Among the specific provisions of the Treaty which the Member States are required to comply with when exercising the entitlement conferred on them by Article2(2) of Directive 97/23, it is necessary, in the light of the objective pursued by that directive, namely to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of pressure equipment within the internal market, to refer to Articles34 and 36 TFEU which govern the free movement of goods and prohibit, between Member States, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect.

28In that regard, it follows from settled case-law that measures adopted by a Member State the object or effect of which is to treat products coming from other Member States less favourably are to be regarded as measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions prohibited by Article34 TFEU, as is any other measure which hinders access of products originating in other Member States to the market of a Member State, unless they can be objectively justified on one of the public interest grounds set out in Article36 TFEU or in order to meet imperative requirements in the public interest. In either case, the national provisions must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, to that effect, judgment of 10February 2009, Commission v Italy, C‑110/05, EU:C:2009:66, paragraphs37 and 59 and the case-law cited).

29In the present case, the referring court states that the conditions imposed by the regulation of 20March 2012, namely the obligation to ventilate cavities where natural gas pipelines are installed and the prohibition on the installation of those pipelines within concrete slabs or within flooring so that they remain accessible, do not lead to any modification of the material sold by the applicant in the main proceedings, which, moreover, is not disputed by the parties to the main proceedings, and those conditions are aimed at ensuring the safety of persons in the light of risks that exist due to factors that are external to pressure equipment, such as earthquakes.

30Furthermore, the referring court considers that the provisions of the regulation of 20March 2012 comply with Article36 TFEU since they apply to all types of pipes irrespective of the material used or the country of origin, have been deemed necessary by the competent national authority in order to ensure the health and safety of persons, and comply with the principle of proportionality.

31In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred by the referring court is that Article4(1)(1.1) of, and AnnexI to, Directive 97/23, read in conjunction with Article2(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in order to ensure the safety of persons, in particular against earthquakes, lays down certain methods of installation for pressure equipment, such as pipes for the transport of gas, including those with the CE marking, provided that that legislation does not lead to any modification of that equipment and does not constitute an obstacle prohibited by Articles34 and 36 TFEU.