Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:350
Date: 2014-05-22
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 22 May 2014 1. Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability — Scope (Council Directive 2000/78; Council Decision 2010/48) 2. Transport — Road transport — Driving licences — Directive 2006/126 — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Requirements for visual acuity — Assessment of the validity in the light of the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of disability — Limitation within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity — Assessment of validity in the light of the obligation to integrate persons with disabilities — Validity — Assessment of validity in the light of the principle of equal treatment — Validity (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21(1) and 26; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126, Arts 4 and 7(7), and Annex III) 1. As far as concerns the issue of discrimination on grounds of disability, Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires the EU legislature, in particular, not to apply any difference in treatment on the basis of a limitation resulting, inter alia, from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other persons, unless such a difference in treatment is objectively justified. (see para. 46) 2. Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed any information capable of affecting the validity of Annex III, paragraph 6.4 of Directive 2006/126 on driving licences in the light of Articles 20, 21(1) and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. A difference in treatment applied to a person according to whether or not he has the visual acuity necessary to drive power-driven vehicles is not, in principle, contrary to the prohibition on discrimination based on disability within the meaning of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as such a requirement actually fulfils an objective of public interest, is necessary and is not a disproportionate burden. By laying down, in Annex III thereto, a minimum threshold of visual acuity for the worse eye for drivers in group 2, for the purposes of that annex, Directive 2006/126 aims to improve road safety and thus to attain an objective of general interest. As regards the necessity of the minimum standards for vision, it is essential, in order to ensure road safety, that the persons to whom a driving licence is issued possess sufficient physical capabilities, in particular with respect to their vision, in so far as physical defects may have significant consequences. Finally, the EU legislature has weighed the requirements of road safety and the right of persons affected by a visual disability to non-discrimination in a manner which cannot be regarded as disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued. Furthermore, although Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires the European Union to respect and recognise the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from integration measures, the principle enshrined by that article does not require the EU legislature to adopt any specific measure. In order for that article to be fully effective, it must be given more specific expression in EU or national law. Accordingly, that article cannot by itself confer on individuals a subjective right which they may invoke as such. Finally, the fact that group 1 drivers under Annex III of Directive 2006/126, who do not satisfy the standards relating, in particular, to visual acuity, the issue of a driving licence may be envisaged in ‘exceptional cases’, where a driver submits to an individual examination to test his fitness to drive whereas there is no such possibility for group 2 drivers does not constitute a difference in treatment contrary to Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The EU legislature took care to create two categories of drivers on the basis of the size of the vehicle, the number of passengers carried and the responsibilities which accordingly result from driving such vehicles. The characteristics of the vehicles concerned, such as the size, weight or manoeuvrability of those vehicles justify the existence of different conditions for the issue of a driving licence in light of the way they are driven. Consequently, the situations of those drivers of such vehicles are not comparable. In so far as those situations are not comparable, a difference in treatment of the situations concerned does not infringe the right of drivers in one or other of the groups to ‘equality before the law’ in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (see paras 50, 51, 54, 72, 78, 80, 83, 84, 86, operative part)