Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:652
Date: 2017-09-07
Language of the case: Czech
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 25 January 2018 1. Transport — Road transport — Driving licences — Directive 2006/126 — Vehicle categories — Failure by a Member State to reproduce the demarcation of categories C/C1 and D/D1 in the national legislation transposing the directive — Failure to fulfil obligations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126, Art. 4(1), (4)(d), (f) and (h)) 2. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) 3. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126) 1. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/126 on driving licences where its national legislation contains a definition of categories C and C1 which does not include the demarcation of categories C/C1 and D/D1 provided for in Article 4 of that directive and expressed by the words ‘other than those in categories D1 or D’, or deletion of the lower limit of more than eight passengers that the EU legislature intended to introduce with the adoption of Directive 2006/126. The existence of those differences in definition results in vehicles of category D1 being able to be driven, under national law, by holders of a C1 licence, which is contrary to the objective of Directive 2006/126, namely that of road safety. Thus, for a certain type of vehicle, the category of driving licence required in that Member State differs from that which must be held by drivers in other Member States. Such a situation is contrary to the primary objectives pursued by Directive 2006/126. Moreover, a lower limit for the number of passengers that vehicles belonging to category D1 can transport is tantamount to imposing a condition which does not appear in Article 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126, in which EU law defines that category. The existence of that additional condition leads to differences in how that directive is applied in the Member State concerned compared to other Member States when determining the category within which a vehicle falls, and, accordingly, the type of driving licence required for that vehicle. In that regard, a Member State is not authorised to adopt national legislation transposing Directive 2006/126 which introduces conditions not provided for by the directive, which would result in the categories of vehicles defined by Directive 2006/126 being amended, to the detriment of road safety. (see paras 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 53) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 35) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47, 48)