Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:754
Date: 2022-10-06
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Transport;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

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:  
26 April 2021  
Referring court: 
Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
26 April 2021  
Prosecuting authority at first instance:  
Sofiyska gradska prokuratura 
Defendant at first instance:  
HV 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
1 The subject matter of the main proceedings is a general criminal case in which a 
person was finally convicted for a road traffic accident caused by him in breach of 
road traffic regulations pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Zakon za dvizhenie po 
patishtata (Law on road traffic, Bulgaria; ‘the ZDvP’) and for the resulting 
negligent infliction of moderate bodily harm on several persons, an offence under 
the first alternative of Article 343(3)(а) and Article 343(1)(b) of the Nakazatelen 
kodeks (Criminal Code, Bulgaria; ‘the NK’), read in conjunction with the third 
alternative of Article 342(1) thereof. 
2 In accordance with Article 2(1) of the NK, read in conjunction with Article 78а(1) 
thereof, the accused person was released from criminal liability and the 
administrative penalty of a fine of 1 000 leva (BGN) was imposed on him. By the 
conviction, the right of the accused person to drive a motor vehicle was 
temporarily withdrawn for a period of six months from the date on which the 
judgment became final, in accordance with Article 78a(4) and Article 343d of the 
NK. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-266/21 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
3 The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the application of Article 2(4) and 
Article 4(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 
2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and 
probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and 
alternative sanctions, in a case where the sanction imposed – ‘suspension of the 
right to drive a motor vehicle’ – cannot be enforced in the State of conviction 
because the convicted person has taken up residence in another Member State in 
which the driving licence issued to him by the State of conviction was exchanged 
for a driving licence issued by the State of residence. 
Owing to the executing Member State’s refusal to enforce the penalty, there is a 
risk that the convicted person will go unpunished. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. 1. – Do judicial decisions in criminal proceedings by which, in the case of 
offences consisting of a breach of road traffic regulations and moderate bodily 
harm caused by negligence, the administrative sanction of suspension of the right 
to drive a vehicle for a specified period is imposed on the offender fall within the 
scope of Article 2(4) and Article 4(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 
2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual 
recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of 
probation measures and alternative sanctions? 
1. 2. – Do the provisions of Article 11(2) and the first to third subparagraphs of 
Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences constitute a basis for the 
Member State in which the holder of a driving licence issued by that State is 
habitually resident to refuse to recognise and enforce an administrative sanction, 
in the form of a temporary withdrawal of the right to drive a vehicle, imposed in 
another Member State for the offence of breaching road traffic regulations and 
negligently causing moderate bodily harm to another person, an offence 
committed at a time when the offender held a driving licence issued by the State 
of residence, for which the driving licence originally issued by the State of 
conviction had been exchanged? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
4 Article 2(4) and Article 4(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to 
judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation 
measures and alternative sanctions 
HV 
 
3 
5 Article 11(2) and the first to third subparagraphs of Article 11(4) of Directive 
2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 
2006 on driving licences 
Article 91(1)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Nakazatelen kodeks na Republika Bulgaria (Criminal Code, Bulgaria): 
Article 342 
(1) Whosoever breaches road traffic regulations while driving railway rolling 
stock, flying an aircraft, driving a motor vehicle, navigating a vessel or driving a 
combat or special vehicle and thereby poses a threat to the life or limb of another 
person shall be liable to serve a custodial sentence of up to two years or a 
suspended sentence. 
Article 343 
(1) If the offences referred to in the preceding article caused, through negligence: 
b) serious or moderate bodily harm, the penalty shall be, irrespective of whether 
the consequences referred to in a) occurred, a custodial sentence of up to four 
years in the case of serious bodily harm and, in the case of moderate bodily harm, 
a custodial sentence of up to three years or a suspended sentence; 
(3) If the offence was committed while under the influence of alcohol or after the 
use of narcotic or similar substances, or if it causes bodily harm to, or results in 
the death of, several persons, or if the offender fled the scene of the accident, the 
penalty shall be: 
а) in the case of serious or moderate bodily harm, a custodial sentence of up to 
five years … 
Article 343d In all cases referred to in Articles 343, 343а, 343b and 343c(1), the 
court shall also order the withdrawal of the right pursuant to point 7 of 
Article 37(1) and may order the withdrawal of the right pursuant to point 6. 
Article 37(1) Penalties: 
7. Withdrawal of the right to pursue a particular profession or a particular activity; 
Article 78а A person of full age shall be released from criminal liability by the 
court and an administrative penalty of 1 000 to 5 000 leva (BGN) shall be 
imposed on him or her if all the following conditions are met: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-266/21 
 
4  
а) for the offence concerned, a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or 
other less severe penalty is provided for where committed intentionally, or a 
custodial sentence not exceeding five years or other less severe penalty is 
provided for where committed through negligence; 
b) the offender has neither been convicted of an offence that is the subject of 
prosecution by the public prosecutor nor released from criminal liability under the 
provisions of this section; 
c) the damage to property caused by the offence has been compensated. 
(4) The court which imposes the fine under paragraph 1 may also impose the 
administrative penalty of withdrawal of the right to pursue a particular profession 
or a particular activity for a period of up to three years if the withdrawal of that 
right is provided for in respect of the offence concerned. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
6 In a general criminal case, the accused person was finally convicted for a road 
traffic accident caused by him in breach of road traffic regulations pursuant to 
Article 20(2) of the ZDvP and for the resulting negligent infliction of moderate 
bodily harm on several persons, an offence under the first alternative of 
Article 343(3)(а) and Article 343(1)(b) of the NK, read in conjunction with the 
third alternative of Article 342(1). 
7 In accordance with Article 2(1) of the NK, read in conjunction with Article 78а(1) 
thereof, the accused person was released from criminal liability and the 
administrative penalty of a fine of 1 000 leva (BGN) was imposed on him. By the 
judgment, the right of the accused person to drive a motor vehicle was temporarily 
withdrawn for a period of six months from the date on which the judgment 
became final, in accordance with Article 78a(4) and Article 343d of the NK. 
8 After the judgment became final, a copy of it was transmitted to the Sofiyska 
gradska prokuratura (Public Prosecutor’s Office for the City of Sofia) for 
enforcement. 
9 The Public Prosecutor’s Office for the City of Sofia informed the Sofiyski gradski 
sad (Sofia City Court) that it was not possible to enforce the administrative 
penalty of a six-month suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle because the 
convicted person was permanently residing in the Kingdom of Spain, and that 
penalty therefore could not be enforced in the territory of the Republic of 
Bulgaria. 
10 In response to a request made by the court, information was received from the 
‘Patna politsiya’ (traffic police) department of the Ministry of Interior. The 
information showed that the convicted person held a category B driving licence 
HV 
 
5 
issued in the Republic of Bulgaria, which was exchanged for a driving licence 
issued in the Kingdom of Spain. 
11 On 27 October 2020, a judge of Sofia City Court issued a certificate pursuant to 
Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation 
decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative 
sanctions. 
12 The Kingdom of Spain was specified as the executing State in the certificate, as 
that is where the convicted person is lawfully and ordinarily resident. 
13 In point (j)(4) of the certificate, entitled ‘Nature of the probation measure(s) or 
alternative sanction(s)’, the box ‘instructions relating to behaviour, residence, 
education and training, leisure activities, or containing limitations on or modalities 
of carrying out a professional activity’ was ticked, and, in point (j)(5), the 
alternative sanction imposed on the convicted person was described as 
‘Suspension of the licence to drive a motor vehicle for a period of six months’. 
14 The certificate thus issued was translated into Spanish and sent to JDO. 
CENTRAL DE LO PENAL, MADRID by post. 
15 By decision of 17 February 2021, JDO. CENTRAL DE LO PENAL, MADRID 
refused to enforce the penalty imposed on HV – suspension of the licence to drive 
a motor vehicle. 
16 The grounds for that decision read as follows: ‘The withdrawal of a driving 
licence is not provided for as a penalty to be recognised under Law No 23/2014 of 
20 November on the mutual recognition of court judgments, either under 
Article 94 of that law as a “probation measure” to be enforced in Spain, or under 
one of the Framework Decisions on the enforcement of sentences or probation 
measures in Europe. Consequently, as regards enforcement (of the judgment), we 
must refer to Directive 2006/126/ЕC, which, in a judgment of the Fifth Chamber 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 April 2015, was interpreted as 
meaning that “only the authorities of the State of conviction may require the 
convicted person to surrender his or her driving licence in order to prevent him or 
her from driving a motor vehicle in the territory of that State”; the penalty in 
question cannot however be enforced in Spain.’ 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 On the basis of the facts thus established, the question that arises for the Bulgarian 
court is how the penalty of ‘suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle for a 
period of six months’ is to be enforced against the convicted Bulgarian national, 
who is lawfully and ordinarily resident in Spain. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-266/21 
 
6  
18 The court which delivered the criminal judgment (‘the referring court’) takes the 
view that the penalty of suspension of the right to drive for a period of six months 
imposed on the convicted person falls within the scope of Article 2(4) of Council 
Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of 
the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a 
view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, since it is 
an ‘alternative sanction’, other than a custodial sentence, a measure involving 
deprivation of liberty or a financial penalty, imposing an instruction. That 
instruction falls within the scope of Article 4(1)(d) of the Framework Decision 
inasmuch as it is an ‘instruction relating to behaviour’, since it contains a 
prohibition on driving for a certain period of time. Similarly, the imposition of an 
obligation to stop the consumption of alcohol is given as an example of an order 
relating to behaviour in recital 10 of the Framework Decision. In the same recital, 
an obligation to follow a ‘safe-driving course’ is given as an example of an 
instruction relating to training which falls within the scope of Article 4(1)(d). 
19 After having identified, in consultation with the contact point of the European 
Judicial Network, the competent Spanish judicial authority responsible for 
recognition and enforcement under the abovementioned Framework Decision, the 
Bulgarian court issued and transmitted the certificate containing the necessary 
information on the judgment and the convicted person. 
20 The refusal by the competent Spanish court to enforce the penalty imposed in 
Bulgaria – suspension of the licence to drive a motor vehicle – on the ground that 
such a penalty does not fall within the scope of Council Framework Decision 
2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 requires an interpretation of that act of EU 
law in accordance with the first question referred, for which the Court of Justice 
of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’) has jurisdiction. As already stated 
in paragraph 18, the court that delivered the criminal judgment takes the view that 
that penalty falls within the scope of Article 2(4) and Article 4(1)(d) of Council 
Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 because it contains an 
instruction relating to a certain behaviour of the sentenced person. 
21 The other reasoning on which the Spanish court based its refusal to enforce the 
Bulgarian criminal judgment in so far as it withdrew the convicted person’s right 
to drive a motor vehicle for a period of six months also requires an interpretation 
of EU law in accordance with the second question referred. According to the 
Spanish court, a basis for refusing to enforce the penalty imposed by the Bulgarian 
court is also contained in the provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC, as interpreted 
by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 23 April 2015, according to which only 
the authorities of the country of conviction can require the convicted person to 
surrender his or her driving licence in order to prevent him or her from driving a 
motor vehicle in the territory of that country. 
22 Although that judgment was not clearly identified by the Spanish court, it is clear 
from the indications of the date, Chamber, and provision of EU law to be 
HV 
 
7 
interpreted that it was referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 
С-260/13. 
23 The referring court takes the view that the interpretation of EU law given in the 
cited judgment of the Court of Justice in Case С-260/13 cannot be applied to the 
main proceedings without restriction, since the latter are characterised by factual 
and legal circumstances which differ from those at issue in that case, for the 
resolution of which a request for a preliminary ruling was made in Case C-260/13. 
24 Very briefly, the dispute in which the request for a preliminary ruling in Case 
С-260/13 was made concerned the compatibility with the provisions of Directive 
2006/126/EC of measures of the authorities of the Member State in which the 
unlawful conduct had taken place refusing to recognise the validity of the driving 
licence of an offender who was staying in that State on a temporary basis. The 
dispute before the referring court in that case concerned the validity under EU law 
of measures to withdraw (refuse to recognise the validity) a driving licence of the 
perpetrator of an offence which had taken place in the territory of that State, in 
view of the fact that the driving licence had previously been issued in the Member 
State of normal residence. 
25 In the case in the main proceedings, the main problem from a factual perspective 
is the impossibility of effectively enforcing in full a final judgment imposing, in 
application of Bulgarian substantive law, a sanction – suspension of the 
perpetrator’s right to drive a motor vehicle – for an offence committed in the 
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. That impossibility of enforcement arises 
from the fact that the convicted person is lawfully and ordinarily resident in 
another Member State – in casu, Spain – and that his driving licence, originally 
issued in Bulgaria, was exchanged in that other State. 
26 The Spanish court’s refusal to recognise and enforce the sanction imposed in 
Bulgaria leads to a state of impunity for the convicted person, both in Spain and in 
Bulgaria, as he could return to Bulgaria either temporarily or permanently in 
exercise of his right of freedom of movement, where he could drive a motor 
vehicle with his currently valid Spanish driving licence, despite the fact that his 
right to drive a motor vehicle has been temporarily withdrawn. 
27 From a legal point of view, the interpretation given in Case С-260/13 concerns the 
application of Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of 
Directive 2006/126/ЕC. In the main proceedings before the referring court, there 
is no need for an interpretation of Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/ЕC, since the 
obligation of the Member States of the European Union mutually to recognise 
driving licences issued by them is not disputed and does not require further 
clarification. The facts of the case in the main proceedings do not fall entirely and 
exclusively within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of 
Directive 2006/126/ЕC, since, at the time when the sanction – suspension of the 
perpetrator’s right to drive a motor vehicle – imposed by the Bulgarian court took 
legal effect, the convicted person held a driving licence issued by the Spanish 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-266/21 
 
8  
authorities, for which his driving licence originally issued in Bulgaria was 
exchanged. 
28 The referring court takes the view that an interpretation of Article 11(2) of 
Directive 2006/126/ЕC is necessary since, in the circumstances of the main 
proceedings, the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws referred to 
in that provision conflicts with the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in 
criminal matters and its application under Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA. 
The referring court takes the view that that interpretation must provide an answer 
to the question of which of the acts of EU law referred to in the two questions 
referred for a preliminary ruling is lex specialis in relation to the other: is it 
Directive 2006/126/EC, with the result that, on the basis of its provisions, the 
enforcement of a judgment in respect of which a certificate has been issued under 
Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA may be refused, or is that framework 
decision the more specific law in relation to the principle of national effect of 
criminal and police laws which is enshrined in Article 11(2) of Directive 
2006/126/EC? 
29 The referring court takes the view that the circumstances of the case in the main 
proceedings also require an interpretation of the first to third subparagraphs of 
Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC. According to the wording of those 
provisions, they appear to provide, unconditionally, that the restriction of the right 
to drive a motor vehicle in one Member State constitutes a ground on which 
another Member State can refuse to issue a driving licence or to recognise its 
validity. However, a broader interpretation is required as to the extent to which the 
same consequences of a restriction of the right to drive a motor vehicle by a 
Member State also apply to a driving licence that was originally issued in the State 
which imposed the restriction and has since been exchanged in another Member 
State. 
30 The facts of the case in the main proceedings require an interpretation of the 
second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/ЕC and, in that 
regard, further clarification of the interpretation of that provision already given by 
the Court of Justice in point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Case 
C-260/13, in the light of the fact that the factual circumstances are different [from 
those in that case] but the validity of the principles established in that judgment 
remains the same. The referring court takes the view that those principles are 
given expression in the competence, recognised in the judgment, of the Member 
State in which the offence took place to apply its national legislation on the 
restriction of the right of the offender to drive a motor vehicle in its territory, even 
though, prior to the offence, he held a driving licence issued by another Member 
State. 
31 In that respect, taking into account the interpretation of the second subparagraph 
of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC in the judgment of the Court of Justice 
in Case C-260/13, the penalty of suspension of the convicted person’s right to 
drive a motor vehicle for a period of six months imposed in the conviction in the 
HV 
 
9 
main proceedings appears to be valid irrespective of the fact that, at the time of the 
offence, he held a driving licence issued by the Kingdom of Spain, for which his 
driving licence originally issued in Bulgaria had been exchanged. 
32 On the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 
2006/126/EC, the validity of the penalty imposed by the Bulgarian court – 
suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle for a period of six months – 
should entail its enforceability, both on Bulgarian territory and in Spain, having 
regard to the principle of mutual recognition and the fact that the convicted person 
is habitually resident there. 
33 At the same time, the Spanish court’s refusal to recognise and enforce the penalty 
of suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle for a period of six months 
imposed by the referring court, relying on the interpretation of the second 
subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC given by the Court of 
Justice in the judgment in Case C-260/13, also prevents the enforcement of the 
penalty in Bulgaria, since it is almost impossible to enforce the withdrawal of the 
driving licence of the convicted person, in the event that he is in the country, 
owing to the freedom of movement and the border controls carried out by the 
Bulgarian authorities in respect of traffic in the European Union in accordance 
with the risk analysis procedure. In that respect, it is necessary to clarify whether 
such an outcome is compatible with the spirit and purpose of the second 
subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, having regard to the 
facts of the case in the main proceedings and the principles already established in 
the context of the interpretation of that provision given by the Court of Justice in 
Case C-260/13. 
34 Lastly, the referring court takes the view that the requested interpretation of the 
provisions of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA and Directive 2006/126/EC 
referred to in the two questions referred for a preliminary ruling must also be 
given in the light of the common transport policy laid down in Article 91(1)(c) of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, within the framework of 
which the Member States are required to adopt measures to improve transport 
safety. 
35 The referring court takes the view that an interpretation of Framework Decision 
2008/947/JHA and Directive 2006/126/EC to the effect that enforcement of the 
penalty imposed – suspension of the right of the convicted person to drive a motor 
vehicle – is not permissible would constitute an obstacle to the pursuit of the 
objectives of the common policy on improving transport safety, since the 
perpetrator of a traffic offence in which two road users suffered moderate bodily 
harm would in fact go unpunished. 
36 That impunity would manifest itself in the impossibility of enforcing the most 
appropriate punishment for the purposes of education and prevention, namely the 
temporary suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle. By contrast, under 
another of the existing instruments of mutual recognition – Council Framework 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-266/21 
 
10  
Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of 
mutual recognition to financial penalties – there are no obstacles to the recognition 
of the other, less severe penalty imposed in the main proceedings, namely the fine 
imposed. 
37 Following the refusal thus issued by the Spanish court to recognise and enforce 
the penalty imposed in Bulgaria – suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle 
for a period of six months – the question that arises for the referring court is 
whether it should take no action and let the limitation period for the enforcement 
of that penalty provided for in Bulgarian law expire, on 20 November 2022, or 
whether it should transmit a new certificate within the meaning of Framework 
Decision 2008/947/JHA in which it provides more detailed reasons for the 
applicability of precisely that regime of mutual recognition and enforcement and 
for the compatibility of the requested recognition with Article 11(2) and the first 
to third subparagraphs of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006.