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

15Dimco trades in, imports and distributes high-technology products used in the fitting of natural gas installations in buildings. It imports, from the United Kingdom, and sells, in Greece, flexible stainless steel pipes.

16On 16May 2012, Dimco brought an action before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece) seeking the annulment of various provisions of the regulation of 20March 2012, claiming, inter alia, that those provisions are aimed at promoting the use of conventional steel and copper gas pipes, to the detriment of those which Dimco sells, making it impossible in practice to use and therefore sell the pipes which it imports. Dimco thus considers that paragraph1.2.4 of that regulation and pointsP.9.5.6.9 and P.9.5.8.2 of Annex9 to that regulation infringe Article4(1)(1.1) of Directive 97/23.

17Dimco submits, in that regard, that the pipes which it sells bear the CE marking. It follows from AnnexI to, and Article4(1)(1.1) of, Directive 97/23 that the additional conditions and restrictions imposed for reasons relating to protection against earthquakes cannot apply to gas pipes which bear the CE marking and which the manufacturer, in its instructions, has certified can be safely installed and used.

18The referring court considers that the provisions of the regulation of 20March 2012, which lay down conditions and restrictions as to the method of installation of gas pipes in light of the specific characteristics of the country, in particular earthquakes, have their basis in Article2 of Directive 97/23 and comply with the provisions of that article. According to that court, those conditions and restrictions comply with Article36 TFEU, in so far as they apply without distinction to all types of pipes, regardless of the material from which they are made or their country of origin, have been deemed necessary by the competent national authority in order to ensure the health and safety of persons, comply with the principle of proportionality and do not entail any modification of the material sold by the applicant in the main proceedings. The referring court thus considers that the plea for annulment raised by the applicant in the main proceedings and directed against those provisions could be rejected as unfounded. Nevertheless, it has doubts as to whether certain provisions of the regulation of 20March 2012 comply with Article4(1)(1.1), Article7(4) and Article8 of, and AnnexI to, Directive 97/23.

19In those circumstances, the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)Must Article4(1)(1.1), Article7(4) and Article8 of, and AnnexI to, [Directive 97/23] be interpreted as precluding national regulations, such as paragraphs1.2.4 of, and points P9.5.6.9 and P9.5.8.2 of Annex9 to, the regulation [of 20March 2012] on internal natural gas installations with an operating pressure of up to 0.5 bar, which impose conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as compulsory ventilation and a ban on underfloor pipe lines, in order to protect persons, in particular from earthquakes, in view of the fact that those conditions and restrictions also apply indiscriminately to pipes which, as in this case, have the “CE” marking and which the manufacturer guarantees can be safely installed and used without complying with the abovementioned conditions and restrictions?

(2)Or, conversely, must the above provisions of [Directive 97/23], read in conjunction with Article2 of that directive, be interpreted as not precluding conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as those at issue in this case?’