Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:864
Date: 2020-10-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation  C-112/19 — 1 
Case C-112/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
12 February 2019 
Referring court: 
Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 February 2019 
Applicant: 
Marvin M. 
Defendant: 
Kreis Heinsberg 
  
[...] 
VERWALTUNGSGERICHT AACHEN (Administrative Court, Aachen, 
Germany) 
DECISION 
[...] 
In the administrative proceedings 
Mr Marvin M., the Netherlands, 
applicant, 
[...] 
v 
the administrative district of Heinsberg, [...], 
defendant, 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 2. 2019 — CASE C-112/19 
 
2  
regarding refusal to recognise a Dutch driving licence document  
in this case: reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
 
the 3rd Chamber of the 
VERWALTUNGSGERICHT AACHEN 
  
[Or. 2] [...] 
made the following 
O r d e r 
on 4 February 2019: 
The proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen are stayed. 
A preliminary ruling on the following questions of interpretation is to be 
obtained from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to 
Article 267 TFEU: 
1. Is Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC to be interpreted as meaning 
that a driving licence document, including, specifically, the driving 
authorisations documented therein, must be strictly recognised by the 
Member States also in the case where the issuing of that document is 
based on an exchange of driving licence documents pursuant to 
Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC? 
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: May a Member 
State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document 
pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 
2006/126/EC if the exchange by the issuing State was carried out at a 
time when the Member State from which the material entitlement to 
drive originates had already withdrawn that entitlement? 
3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative and an obligation of 
recognition does exist: May a Member State refuse to recognise the 
exchanged driving licence document in any event if the Member State 
in the territory of which the question of recognition of the driving 
licence document arises can establish, on the basis of ‘indisputable 
information’, that the material entitlement to drive no longer existed at 
the time when the driving licence document was exchanged? [Or. 3] 
M. 
 
3 
Grounds 
I. 
1 The applicant is a German citizen and lives on the Dutch side of the German-
Netherlands border area. He seeks the annulment of a decision in which the 
defendant deprives him of the right to drive motor vehicles in Germany on the 
basis of his Dutch driving licence document. 
2 The applicant, who was born on 28 November 1990, obtained the driving licence 
for categories AM and B in Germany on 3 July 2008 and the driving licence for 
category T on 1 July 2015, for which the German authorities issued him a driving 
licence with the number J 2408774372. 
3 On 9 June 2016, he was stopped by a police checkpoint while driving a motor 
vehicle. He tested positive for cannabis in an on-the-spot drug test. A 
chemical/toxicological examination of the blood sample detected the cannabis 
substance THC and traces of amphetamine in the blood serum. 
4 By letter of 20 September 2016, the defendant informed the applicant that it 
intended to withdraw his driving licence because he had been driving under the 
influence of drugs, as referred to above. 
5 On 29 September 2016, the applicant deregistered his German place of residence 
and moved to the Netherlands, where he registered with his address in a Dutch 
border area. 
6 On 1 November 2016, the applicant contacted the authorities in the Netherlands 
and requested that his German driving licence (No J 2408774372) be exchanged 
for a Dutch driving licence. 
7 By order of 9 November 2016, which was enforceable with immediate effect, the 
defendant withdrew the driving authorisation granted on 3 July 2008 (categories 
AM and B) and 1 July 2015 (category T) from the applicant and ordered him, on 
pain of an administrative fine, [Or. 4] to return the driving licence issued under 
number J 2408774372 without delay. As grounds, it pointed out that the applicant 
was not fit to drive motor vehicles. He had, in its view, a drug problem. Even in 
the future, it could be expected that he would drive a motor vehicle under the 
influence of drugs, as was the case on 9 June 2016. 
8 On 12 November 2016, the decision of 9 November 2016 was served on the 
applicant in the proper manner via his German lawyer at the time. 
9 On 14 November 2016, the authority responsible for exchanging driver licences in 
the Netherlands, the ‘Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer’ (‘the RDW’), checked 
whether the applicant, who had produced his German driving licence, still had the 
driving authorisation for categories AM, B and T documented therein. To this end, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 2. 2019 — CASE C-112/19 
 
4  
the RDW ran a computational query in the European driving licence database 
‘Réseau permis de conduire’ (‘RESPER’). 
10 On that date, the European database RESPER indicated to the Netherlands 
authority RDW that the driving authorisation granted to the applicant in Germany 
on 3 July 2008 and 1 July 2015 was valid (in Dutch: ‘geldig’). 
11 On 17 November 2016, the RDW issued a Dutch driving licence 
(No 5871795197) to the applicant. In column 10 of the document (date of issue), it 
reads ‘3 July 2008’ and ‘1 July 2015’. ‘AM 70.D.J 2408774372’ and ‘B 70.D. J 
2408774372’ are entered in column 12 of the document (additional information). 
12 By letter from the RDW received on 5 December 2016, the defendant was 
informed that the applicant had exchanged his German driving licence for a Dutch 
driving licence. The German driving licence document was enclosed with the 
letter. 
13 The defendant asked the Dutch RDW whether, having regard to the German 
withdrawal of the driving authorisation by decision of 9 November 2016, the 
Dutch driving licence of 17 November 2016 would be acknowledged. [Or. 5] 
14 By email of 4 January 2017, the RDW communicated that it acknowledged the re-
registration that had been carried out, as the RESPER database had indicated to it 
that the German driving authorisation was valid in a query conducted on 
14 November 2016. 
15 On 17 January 2017, the applicant was driving his passenger car along a road in 
the defendant’s territory on the German side of the German-Netherlands border 
area and was stopped by a police checkpoint. The police officers claimed that he 
was not in possession of a valid driving authorisation for Germany. 
16 By the decision of 5 September 2017 at issue here, the defendant stated that the 
driving licence issued to the applicant in the Netherlands on 17 November 2016 
(No 5871795197, categories: AM, B and T) did not entitle him to drive, in 
Germany, vehicles for which a driving licence is mandatory. 
17 As grounds, the defendant stated, inter alia, the following: The driving 
authorisation was effectively withdrawn from the applicant by legally enforceable 
order on account of driving under the influence of drugs on 9 June 2016. 
However, contrary to the obligation to produce documents, the applicant did not 
return his driving licence document, but rather exchanged it for a Dutch driving 
licence after departing the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. This EU 
driving licence was issued without any aptitude check being carried out by the 
Dutch authorities in the exchange procedure. In accordance with the provisions of 
Paragraph 28 of the German Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung (Driving Licence 
Regulation), therefore, the document was incapable of conferring entitlement to 
drive in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. 
M. 
 
5 
18 The applicant brought an action against that decision on 15 September 2017. As 
grounds, he essentially argues that the declaratory decision infringes the principle 
of mutual recognition of EU driving licences enshrined in EU law, as was evident 
from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 April 2012 
in the Hofmann case (C-419/10). 
19 By decision of 26 February 2018 [...], the Board rejected the applicant’s request to 
be granted interim relief: according to German case-law and legal literature, 
recognition of the Dutch [Or. 6] driving licence document had to be refused in the 
present case. Even if the legal situation were to be regarded as being open in the 
light of EU law, road safety should be given priority over the applicant’s mobility 
interests in the balancing of interests required in the urgent procedure. The 
applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the 
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court) for the Land of North 
Rhine-Westphalia by decision of 14 June 2018 [...]. 
II. 
20 The dispute in the main proceedings is to be stayed. A preliminary ruling on the 
questions set out in the operative part of the decision is to be obtained from the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (‘European Court of Justice’), cf. 
Article 267 TFEU. 
21 Legal framework of EU law: 
22 Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC: 
‘Driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised.’ 
23 Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC: 
‘Where the holder of a valid national driving licence issued by a Member State 
has taken up normal residence in another Member State, he may request that his 
driving licence be exchanged for an equivalent licence. It shall be for the Member 
State effecting the exchange to check for which category the licence submitted is 
in fact still valid.’ 
24 The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC: 
‘A Member State shall refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence 
issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is restricted, 
suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory.’ [Or. 7] 
25 Legal framework of German law: 
26 The first sentence of Paragraph 29(1) of the Verordnung über die Zulassung von 
Personen zum Straßenverkehr (Regulation relating to the entitlement of persons to 
drive on the road; the ‘Driving Licence Regulation’) provides: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 2. 2019 — CASE C-112/19 
 
6  
‘Holders of a foreign driving licence may drive motor vehicles to the extent of 
their entitlement within the Federal Republic of Germany if they are not normally 
resident there pursuant to Paragraph 7’. 
27 Paragraph 29(3) of the Driving Licence Regulation provides: 
‘The entitlement pursuant to paragraph (1) does not apply to holders of foreign 
driving licences 
(…) 
3. from whom the driving licence has been withdrawn in the Federal Republic 
of Germany by a court in a provisional or definitive manner or by an 
administrative authority in an immediately enforceable or legally final 
manner, 
(…) 
In the cases in the first sentence, the authority may issue a declaratory 
administrative act in relation to the lack of entitlement.’ 
III. 
28 The questions referred are material to the decision. 
29 The judicial decision on the action depends on the question of whether the 
contested decision of 5 September 2017 is compatible with EU law. 
30 In the decision, the applicant is deprived of the right to drive vehicles for which 
driving authorisation is mandatory on the territory of the Federal Republic of 
Germany on the basis of a driving licence document acquired in the Netherlands 
via an exchange. The administrative court seised of the matter intends to regard 
the contested decision as lawful. It believes that it is necessary to make an 
exception from the obligation of recognition under EU law, because the German 
material [Or. 8] entitlement to drive had already been withdrawn from the 
applicant at the time when he exchanged his German driving licence document in 
the Netherlands. Therefore, there could not be any justification for putting the 
document exchanged in the Netherlands in a better position than the underlying 
original German document, which no longer conferred on the applicant material 
entitlement to drive at the time of the exchange. The court considers itself to be 
prevented from taking such a decision, however. Thus, the requirements under EU 
law under which a driving licence document acquired in the issuing State by way 
of exchange may exceptionally be regarded as invalid in another Member State 
appear to be in need of interpretation and/or clarification. 
31 The first question of interpretation: 
M. 
 
7 
The court assumes that the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, with 
the result that the obligation of recognition ‘without any formality’ that exists 
pursuant to the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice (cf., in this 
regard, for instance: the judgment in Hofmann, C-419/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:240, 
paragraph 43) also automatically applies to exchanged driving licence documents 
and the material entitlement to drive documented therein. 
32 The second question of interpretation: 
The court is inclined to answer the second question of interpretation in the 
affirmative also. The (German) wording of the provision in the second 
subparagraph of Paragraph 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC militates in favour of 
this. According to that wording, the recognition of a driving licence document in a 
Member State may be automatically refused if that Member State has previously 
withdrawn the material entitlement to drive from the person concerned. 
33 Conversely, from the perspective of road safety and the objective pursued by it, to 
protect the life and limb of road users, the present Chamber finds it difficult to 
imagine that, by merely exchanging a driving licence document, an entitlement to 
drive that has previously been withdrawn owing to a lack of fitness to drive should 
be re-established without checking the relevant person’s fitness to drive. 
34 This is also the case because, pursuant to the provisions of EU law in point 3 of 
Annex I to Directive 2006/126/EC, a distinction must be made between the 
driving licence document as a mere document providing proof (‘Führerschein’ 
according to the German terminology) and the material entitlement to drive 
(‘Fahrerlaubnis’ according to the German [Or. 9] terminology). This distinction is 
reflected in the entries that must be present in the exchanged driving licence 
document. Accordingly, the Dutch RDW made the following entries in column 12 
of its driving licence document on 17 November 2016: 
‘AM 70.D.J 2408774372’ and ‘B 70.D.J 2408774372’. 
35 The code number ‘70’ used by the RDW here, which follows the designation of 
the driving licence category (AM and B, respectively), documents the fact, 
pursuant to point 3 of Annex I to Directive 2006/126/EC, that the issuing of the 
document is based on an exchange, whereby the letter and number combination 
‘D.J 2408774372’ designates the exchanged German (‘D’) EU driving licence. In 
addition, there are the entries in column 10 of the Dutch driving licence document, 
which display the dates of the driving authorisations acquired in Germany: ‘3 July 
2008’ with regard to categories AM and B, and ‘1 July 2015’ with regard to the 
category T driving entitlement. 
36 Nevertheless, the Chamber seised of the matter raises the question of whether and 
to what extent the broad wording of the provision in the second subparagraph of 
Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC is to be interpreted restrictively, 
specifically in the light of the particular importance of the principle of mutual 
recognition of driving licence documents enshrined in Article 2(1) of Directive 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 2. 2019 — CASE C-112/19 
 
8  
2006/126/EC, which serves to realise the freedom of movement within the 
territory of the Union guaranteed to every citizen of the Union pursuant to 
Article 21 TFEU. 
37 Thus, in settled case-law, the European Court of Justice has made unequivocally 
clear, in relation to so-called ‘driving licence tourism’, that a Member State that 
has withdrawn authorisation to drive from, or has not granted it to, the person 
concerned in the past owing to a lack of fitness to drive is in no way permitted to 
refuse to recognise, for that reason, a driving licence document that was 
subsequently issued to the person concerned in a different Member State on the 
basis of an aptitude test conducted there (cf., in that regard, the judgments 
Hofmann, C-419/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 70, and Akyüz, C-467/10, 
ECLI:EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 47; and see previously, to this effect, the 
judgment Kapper, C-476/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:261, paragraph 77 [Or. 10] and 
the orders Halbritter, C-227/05, ECLI:EU:C:2006:245, paragraph 28, and 
Kremer, C-340/05, ECLI:EU:C:2006:620, paragraph 30). 
38 However, the consideration relevant in the Hofmann judgment, C-419/10, 
ECLI:EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 76 et seq., is not at all applicable in the 
document exchange under consideration here. Thus, in the Hofmann judgment, the 
European Court of Justice also proceeded on the basis that a less recognition-
friendly legal interpretation of Directive 2006/126/EC would mean that the person 
affected by the non-recognition of his driving licence document would not be able 
to obtain authorisation to drive in the new Member State of residence, which, in 
turn, would entail an unjustified restriction of the right to move and reside freely 
within the territory of the Member States, as guaranteed by Article 21 TFEU. 
39 However, the occurrence of this situation, which runs counter to EU law, is not to 
be feared if the recognition of an exchanged driving licence document is refused. 
Accordingly, the person affected by such a refusal remains free to undergo an 
aptitude test in his Member State of residence and subsequently have issued to 
him a driving licence document that must be recognised without any formalities in 
all Member States (and thus also in the one that previously withdrew from him the 
authorisation to drive). 
40 However, further uncertainties in determining the scope of the principle of mutual 
recognition and its exception arise as a result of the fact that, according to the 
case-law of the European Court of Justice, the respective State of residence is not 
entitled to conduct a review of whether another Member State has met the relevant 
conditions for issuing driving licence documents. The possession of a driving 
licence issued by one Member State has to be regarded as constituting proof that, 
on the day it was issued, its holder fulfilled the relevant conditions (cf., in this 
regard, for instance the judgments Grasser, C-184/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:324, 
paragraph 21, and Schwarz, C-321/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:104, paragraph 77). 
41 The present Chamber has doubts as to whether this principle is applicable without 
restriction to the exchange of documents. Thus, the check to be carried out by the 
M. 
 
9 
Member State effecting the exchange pursuant to the second sentence of 
Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC is designed to determine [Or. 11] for 
which category the document submitted for the exchange is still valid. The issuing 
State must therefore assess the validity of administrative documents issued not by 
it, but by another Member State. This peculiarity raises doubts as to whether the 
possession of an exchanged driving licence document can in fact constitute proof 
that all relevant conditions have been fulfilled. 
42 Moreover, the question of the recognition of the exchanged driving licence 
document should not depend on whether, for instance, the issuing of the document 
took place on the basis of an incorrect validity entry in the EU register RESPER, 
as was the case here. 
43 The third question of interpretation: 
If the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC is not 
applicable, the question that arises for the Board is whether the refusal of 
recognition arises from the case-law of the European Court of Justice. According 
to that case-law, the decisive factor is whether it has been established on the basis 
of ‘indisputable information’ that, when issuing the driving licence document, a 
Member State has failed to comply with conditions that are of fundamental 
importance for the system of mutual recognition under EU law. This is 
acknowledged for instance in the case of the ‘residence requirement’ (cf. 
judgments Hofmann C-419/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:240, paragraphs 43 and 44, 
Grasser, C-184/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:324, paragraph 33, Wiedemann and Others, 
C-329/06 and C-343/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:366, paragraph 72). 
44 Against this background, an exception to the obligation of recognition in respect 
of exchanged driving licence documents appears to be possible to the Chamber if 
a Member State in the territory of which the question of recognition is to be 
answered is able to establish, on the basis of ‘indisputable information’, that the 
material entitlement to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence 
document was exchanged. 
45 From the perspective of effectively combating ‘driving licence tourism’, cases in 
which a Member State (for example in the case of a roadside check) can derive 
from columns 10 and 12 of the EU driving licence document submitted to it a 
material entitlement to drive which that Member State itself granted in the past, 
but unequivocally effectively withdrew it prior to the exchange of the driving 
licence documents, as occurred in the present case, [Or. 12] would therefore be 
excluded from the obligation of recognition under EU law. 
[...]