On 5 October 2023, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑296/22, A.T.U. Auto-Teile-Unger GmbH & Co. KG and Carglass GmbH v FCA Italy SpA, on the interpretation of Article 61(1) and (4) of, and Point 2.9 of Annex X to Regulation (EU) 2018/858. The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, A.T.U. Auto-Teile-Unger GmbH & Co. KG (“ATU”), a chain of independent repairers, and Carglass GmbH (“Carglass”), a vehicle glazing repair and replacement company, and, on the other, FCA Italy SpA (“FCA”), a subsidiary of the automotive group Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, which manufactures light passenger and commercial vehicles, concerning the making available, by the latter, of the direct data stream of its vehicles.

In order to perform write operations, erase error codes, perform recalibrations and activate vehicle parts, independent repairers, such as ATU and Carglass, and authorised ones must comply with the requirements stipulated by FCA, that is, to register with the latter, log in using personal connection data on a specifically designed portal, purchase a paid subscription for use of multi-make diagnostic tools and connect them to that server via the internet.

Arguing that the unilateral imposition of those requirements by FCA constitutes infringement of its obligations under Regulation 2018/858, ATU and Carglass brought an action before the Landgericht Köln (Regional Court of Cologne; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask the Court of Justice whether Article 61(1) and (4) of Regulation 2018/858, read in conjunction with Point 2.9 of Annex X to that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding a vehicle manufacturer from making access by independent operators to vehicle repair and maintenance information and to on-board diagnostic ones (OBD), including write access to that information, subject to conditions other than those provided for by that regulation.

According to the Court, if access to the information set out in Article 61(1) of Regulation 2018/858 is made subject to conditions that are not laid down in that regulation, this would give rise to a risk of reducing the number of independent repairers having access to that information, with the potential effect of reducing competition on the market for vehicle repair and maintenance information services and, as a result, the offer to consumers. Furthermore, were they able to limit at their discretion access to the direct vehicle data stream, manufacturers might make access to that stream subject to conditions capable of rendering it impossible in practice.

Marco Stillo