Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:333
Date: 2021-04-29
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary  C-56/20 — 1 
Case C-56/20 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
4 February 2020 
Referring court: 
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 January 2020 
Applicant and appellant: 
AR 
Defendant and respondent: 
Stadt Pforzheim 
  
Subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings 
Entry of an endorsement indicating a ban in a foreign driving licence; 
compatibility with EU law 
Subject-matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does EU law, in particular Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2008 L 403, 
p. 18), as last amended by Commission Directive (EU) 2018/933 of 29 June 2018 
correcting the German language version of Directive 2006/126/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (OJ 2008 L 165, 
p. 35), preclude provisions of national law under which, where a decision refusing 
to recognise the validity of a driving licence, within the meaning of the second 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-56/20 
 
2  
subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, is adopted, the foreign 
EC card driving licence of a person who does not have normal residence in 
national territory must be submitted to the decision-making national authority 
without delay so that the latter can record in the driving licence that that person 
does not have a right to drive in national territory; the endorsement (indicating a 
ban) usually being entered on an EC card driving licence by affixing a red ‘D’, 
crossed out by a diagonal line, to space 13 (for example by means of a sticker)? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18). 
National legislation cited 
Straßenverkehrsgesetz (Road Traffic Law), Paragraph 3 
Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung (Driving Licence Regulation), Paragraphs 46 and 47 
Brief summary of the facts and procedure 
1 The applicant is an Austrian national who has his normal residence in Austria. On 
29 August 2008, he obtained in Austria a driving licence for categories A and B. 
2 On 26 June 2014, the applicant drove a motor vehicle on a public road in 
Germany, even though he was under the influence of cannabis at that time. 
3 By decision of 10 August 2015, the driving licence authority of the German town 
of Pforzheim withdrew his Austrian driving licence within the territory of the 
Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, it requested that he submit to it 
his Austrian driving licence without delay — at the latest by 28 August 2015 — 
so that it could record the invalidity of that driving licence in the Federal Republic 
of Germany in the driving licence document by affixing a red ‘D’ crossed out by a 
diagonal line (a ‘Sperrvermerk’ (an endorsement indicating a ban)). It warned him 
that, should he fail to comply with that request, enforcement officers would 
temporarily seize his driving licence, informing him that his driving licence will 
be returned to him after the endorsement indicating a ban has been affixed. 
4 The applicant’s appeal against that decision of 10 August 2015 was unsuccessful. 
The action subsequently brought was dismissed as inadmissible at first instance. 
The appeal lodged before the referring court is directed only against the request 
that the driving licence be submitted and the warning that the driving licence may 
be seized. The refusal to recognise the validity of the Austrian driving licence in 
the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany has, on the other hand, become 
final and is not addressed in the appeal proceedings. 
STADT PFORZHEIM 
 
3 
Principal arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
5 According to the applicant, the request, set out in the decision of 10 August 2015, 
that he submit his driving licence so that an endorsement indicating a ban can be 
entered is incompatible with EU law. Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC 
provides for the mutual recognition, without specifying any formal requirements, 
of driving licences issued by Member States. It is for the country of residence 
alone to issue and modify driving licences, as is evident, for example, from 
Article 2(2), Article 7(1)(e) and (3)(b), Article 11(1), (2) and (3), Article 12, and 
point 3 (concerning spaces 13 and 14) and point 4(a) of Annex I to that directive. 
If all other Member States were also able to modify the driving licence 
document — for example by affixing an endorsement indicating a ban — that 
would run counter to the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences and 
the aim of Directive 2006/126/EC to create a uniform Community model driving 
licence (for example recitals 4 and 16 and Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC). 
6 It can be assumed that the issue raised by the present case was known at the time 
Directive 2006/126/EC was adopted. It is a long-standing phenomenon, in 
particular in border areas, that persons residing in a particular Member State 
commit, while staying merely temporarily in another Member State, a road traffic 
offence which, according to the regulations of the latter Member State, leads to 
their driving licence being withdrawn. Nonetheless, according to Directive 
2006/126/EC, the Member State of merely temporary presence is not entitled to 
make entries in the new Community model driving licence. The only possible 
conclusion that can be drawn is that such entries are not permitted under EU law. 
7 The spirit and purpose of the comprehensive provisions on measures taken to 
make the plastic card driving licence secure against forgery (for example Article 3 
and points 1 and 2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/126/EC) also rules out the 
possibility of a Member State of merely temporary presence modifying the 
information included in that plastic card by entering additional information in it 
either permanently or by means of a sticker (that can be easily removed again). In 
that regard, it should also be borne in mind that, according to Directive 
2006/126/EC, space 13 of the driving licence is reserved for entries by the host 
Member State and an entry already made by that Member State may not be simply 
‘concealed’. 
8 In addition, compliance with the request to submit the driving licence costs the 
applicant a considerable amount of time and money, restricts his freedom of 
movement and may subsequently lead to considerable problems in practice, for 
example, in the event of a roadside check in another Member State, security 
officers in that Member State could be irritated by an entry in the driving licence 
which is not known to them. Given those burdens and disadvantages, explicit 
provision in that regard should have, but has not been made under Directive 
2006/126/EC. At best, the Member State issuing the driving licence or the host 
Member State can make a corresponding entry in the driving licence by way of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-56/20 
 
4  
mutual assistance under Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC and, in that regard, 
issue a new driving licence document if necessary. 
9 In any case, in the event of a roadside check in a Member State, an electronic 
database could easily be consulted in order to check whether the person concerned 
has the right to drive a motor vehicle in that Member State. This would take little 
additional time. 
10 The defendant contends that, in the judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul (C-260/13, 
EU:C:2015:257), the Court held that, according to the second subparagraph of 
Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, the Member State in whose territory the 
holder of a driving licence does not have his normal residence is also entitled to 
refuse to recognise the validity of the driving licence as a result of unlawful 
conduct in its territory. In that regard, the Court emphasised the importance of 
such a measure for road safety. 
11 According to the German legislature, the endorsement indicating a ban to be 
entered in the driving licence after a decision refusing to recognise its domestic 
validity has been taken is an essential measure, as it is crucial for the effective 
enforcement of a decision refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence 
within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 
2006/126/EC. Moreover, it is apparent from the legislative history and recitals of 
Directive 2006/126/EC that it is intended above all to enhance free movement, 
freedom of establishment and road safety. Those aims can only be achieved if the 
EU driving licence does not lose its function as a document evidencing a right to 
drive. However, this would be the case if the inspecting body was able to 
determine the status of the right to drive not on the basis of the driving licence, but 
only by means of additional, time-consuming checks. It must therefore be 
assumed that there is, in that regard, an unintended regulatory gap in Directive 
2006/126/EC which must be closed by way of analogy. 
12 As Directive 2006/126/EC provides for the possibility of the host Member State 
modifying the driving licence issued by another Member State (for example, 
point 3 [concerning space 13] and point 4(a) of Annex I), it cannot be assumed in 
the present case either that a modification, for example by means of a sticker, 
constitutes an infringement of the provisions on anti-forgery measures. Moreover, 
the applicant is not inconvenienced by the fact that document’s resistance to 
forgery would be reduced by the fact that the sticker whose content incriminates 
him could be removed again. 
Brief summary of the basis for the reference 
13 The order of the German driving licence authority, which is challenged by the 
applicant, that the applicant submit to it his Austrian driving licence so that an 
endorsement indicating a ban can be entered is compatible with Paragraph 3 of the 
Road Traffic Law in conjunction with Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Driving 
STADT PFORZHEIM 
 
5 
Licence Regulation. However, those national provisions could infringe EU law, in 
particular Directive 2006/126/EC. 
14 The question as to whether that is the case is not readily apparent from the Court’s 
previous case-law. Unlike the case in which the Court gave its judgment on 
23 April 2015, Aykul (C-260/13, EU:C:2015:257), the present case does not 
concern the lawfulness of the decision refusing to recognise the validity of a 
driving licence pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 
2006/126/EC, as that decision has now become final, rather it concerns the related 
question as to whether the Member State which has taken the decision refusing to 
recognise the validity of a driving licence as a result of unlawful conduct in its 
territory is also entitled to affix a corresponding endorsement indicating a ban to 
the driving licence issued in another Member State if the holder of that driving 
licence does not have normal residence, within the meaning of Article 12 of 
Directive 2006/126/EC, in the Member State which took the decision refusing to 
recognise the validity of the driving licence. 
15 The main arguments for and against that entitlement have already been put 
forward by the parties. As the situation referred to above is likely to arise 
frequently in practice, the fact that the entitlement in question has not been 
expressly provided for in law certainly suggests that the Directive does not 
provide for it. Given that such a modification to the driving licence document 
interferes with the sovereign rights of the Member State issuing the driving 
licence and the freedoms of the driving licence holder concerned, the question 
also arises as to whether an express provision of EU law is required in order for 
such an entitlement to be accepted. 
16 An argument for such an entitlement is provided, on the other hand, by the fact 
that the Member State of merely temporary presence under the second 
subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC is generally entitled to 
refuse to recognise the domestic validity of the driving licence as a result of 
unlawful conduct in its territory. The entry of a corresponding endorsement 
indicating a ban in the driving licence is merely a measure to enforce that decision 
refusing to recognise the validity of the driving licence. In any case, it is not in the 
interest of traffic safety if the holder of a driving licence can, after a decision 
refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence has been taken, create the 
impression, by presenting his driving licence during a roadside check, that he has 
a right to drive on domestic roads when he does not in fact have such a right. 
17 The solution to the problem could also be for Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC 
to impose a strict requirement on the Member State issuing the driving licence or 
the Member State of residence to enter a corresponding endorsement indicating a 
ban in the driving licence document at the request of the Member State of merely 
temporary presence which took the decision refusing to recognise the validity of 
the driving licence. It could thus also be ensured that, in those cases in which the 
driving licence is replaced (possibly after the driving licence has been reported 
lost) or renewed, the entry of the endorsement indicating a ban is retained. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-56/20 
 
6  
18 According to the referring court, the provisions in international treaties such as the 
Convention on Road Traffic are not relevant to the present case.