62002CC0195_EN
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Opinion of the Advocate-General
1. By the present action, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court to declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences. (2)
2. In support of its application, the Commission puts forward three complaints relating to the procedure for the registration of driving licences (3) issued by other Member States, to the compulsory exchange of certain of those licences for a Spanish licence and to the conditions for the renewal or extension of licences issued prior to the transposition of the directive into Spanish law.
I – Legal context
A – Community legislation
3. The issue and use of licences were harmonised by the adoption of First Directive 80/1263/EEC. (4) That directive was intended, first, to contribute to improving road safety and, second, to assist the movement of persons settling in a Member State other than that in which they have passed a driving test, or moving within the European Economic Community.
4. To that end, Directive 80/1263 approximated certain national rules concerning inter alia the issue of licences and the conditions on which their validity depends. It defined a Community model licence and established the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences and the exchange of such licences when holders transfer their place of residence or place of employment from one Member State to another.
5. Directive 80/1263 was repealed by Directive 91/439. That directive marks a new stage in the harmonisation of national provisions, in particular as regards the conditions of issue of licences and the scope of the principle of the mutual recognition of licences.
6. With regard to the issue of licences, it is subject inter alia to minimum age conditions, (5) to the passing of various tests (6) and to compliance with certain minimum medical standards (7) defined in Annex III to the directive. (8)
7. With regard to the principle of the mutual recognition of licences, it is laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive in the following general terms: ‘driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised’.
8. However, where the holder of a licence takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued that licence, the directive allows the Member State of residence to apply certain of its national rules to the holder of the licence in question.
9. Under Article 1(3) of the directive, that is the case with the aforementioned national rules on taxation, medical checks and the period of validity of licences. In the context of applying those rules, the Member State of residence may enter on a licence issued by another Member State any information indispensable for administration. (9) Point 4 of Annex I to the directive states that the information in question, such as that relating to serious offences committed in the territory of the Member State of residence, may be indicated by the latter on the licence, provided that it also enters that type of information on the licences which it issues and that there is a space available for that purpose. (10)
10. Along similar lines to Article 1(3), the directive provides in Article 8(2) that, ‘subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, the Member State of normal residence may apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, exchange the licence for that purpose’.
B – The national rules
11. In Spain, the main rules governing driving licences are contained in the Reglamento de Conductores (Regulations on Drivers) adopted by Real Decreto (Royal Decree) No 772/1997 of 30 May 1997. (11)
12. Article 22 of the Reglamento de Conductores provides that the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State has a period of six months, from the date of obtaining a document formally confirming his normal residence in Spain, in which to have the details pertaining to that licence entered by the provincial traffic authority on the register of drivers and offenders. Under Article 24(a) of those regulations, the consequence of failure to carry out that formality is that the holder of the licence in question is not entitled to drive a vehicle in Spain. Driving a vehicle in such circumstances is punishable by a fine. (12)
13. In addition, Article 25(2) of the Reglamento de Conductores provides that the provincial traffic administration is to replace a licence on its own initiative where, owing to the characteristics of that licence, to the fact that all the spaces have been used or for other reasons, it is impossible to record the details necessary for administrative purposes in accordance with Article 23 of those regulations.
14. Article 23 provides that the holder of a licence issued by another Member State is to be subject, from the date of registration of that licence in Spain, to regular examinations of his mental and physical fitness, in the same way as the holder of a Spanish licence. It further provides that the results of such examinations are to be communicated to the competent national authorities who are to take note of them and notify the person concerned of the latest date by which he must undergo the next examination and make known the results. It states that that date will be recorded on the aforementioned licence.
15. Finally, the seventh transitional provision of the Reglamento de Conductores provides that the holder of a licence issued before the entry into force of those regulations may obtain an extension of the period of validity of his licence if he satisfies the conditions relating to mental and physical fitness laid down by the previous rules. That possibility applies where the holder of the licence in question does not possess, at the time of applying for the extension, the relevant standards of fitness now required by the aforementioned regulations.
II – Pre-litigation procedure
16. By letter of 27 October 1999, following an exchange of correspondence between the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission, the latter, considering that that Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive, gave it formal notice to submit its observations.
17. As it was not convinced by the observations submitted by the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission sent to it, by letter of 26 July 2001, a reasoned opinion calling on it to take the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the directive within two months of notification of that opinion.
18. Since the Spanish authorities stated that they did not intend to amend the rules in question, the Commission decided to bring the present action, by application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 May 2002.
19. By orders of the President of the Court of 10 October 2002, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of Spain. In the event, only the United Kingdom lodged, on 20 December 2002, a statement in intervention.
III – Admissibility of the form of order sought in the United Kingdom’s application to intervene
20. The Commission raises an objection to the admissibility of the form of order sought in the United Kingdom’s application to intervene, on the grounds that that Member State has intervened only partially in support of the Kingdom of Spain, since the form of order sought by it covers only the first complaint and that, even in regard to that complaint, the form of order sought is not clearly in support of the defendant.
21. The United Kingdom contests such an objection of inadmissibility which, it maintains, results from an incorrect analysis of the relevant case‑law of the Court and from a hasty reading of the form of order sought in the aforementioned application to intervene.
22. In my opinion, the form of order sought in the United Kingdom’s application to intervene is admissible.
23. As the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice states, ‘an application to intervene shall be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties’.
24. It is settled case‑law (13) that those provisions do not prevent an intervener from using in its submissions arguments other than those used by the party which it professes to support, provided that its intervention does in fact seek to support the form of order sought by that party.
25. Although in this case the form of order sought in the United Kingdom’s application to intervene relates exclusively to the first complaint and is based on arguments which differ in part from those advanced by the Kingdom of Spain, it is, like that sought by that Member State, to the effect that the application should be dismissed.
26. Contrary to what the Commission claims, it is therefore clear that the United Kingdom’s intention was not to support the form of order sought by the applicant as regards the other two complaints, on which it remained silent, but in fact to contribute to a possible dismissal of the application by bringing a specific additional viewpoint to the case.
27. That having been established, the fact that the United Kingdom’s contribution is limited to the first complaint is of little account. In my view, there is nothing to prevent an intervener from adopting a position on only one aspect of the form of order sought by the party which it supports. The wording of the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not preclude it. Contrary to what the Commission maintains, the judgment in Commission
v Council
does not preclude it either. (14)
28. I would point out that, in that case, the form of order sought by the intervener was to the effect inter alia that a particular article of a directive should be annulled on grounds which were entirely unconnected with those relied on by the applicant in an action seeking the annulment of the whole of that directive. The Court held that that form of order was inadmissible on the ground that it was not the same as that sought by the applicant. (15)
29. In my opinion, that case-law shows that the form of order sought in an application to intervene cannot be different from that sought by one of the parties to the proceedings. In other words, as Advocate General Tesauro pointed out in that case, (16) intervention under the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is purely ancillary, so that the form of order sought by an intervener cannot have independent status in relation to those sought by the parties.
30. It follows from those considerations that, since it is to the effect of supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties to the proceedings, the form of order sought in the United Kingdom’s application to intervene must be declared admissible.
IV – The application
31. In support of its application, the Commission puts forward three complaints relating, first, to the procedure for the registration of licences issued by another Member State, second, to the compulsory exchange of certain such licences for a Spanish licence and, third, to the conditions for the renewal or extension of licences issued in Spain prior to the transposition of the directive into Spanish law.
A – The first complaint, relating to the procedure for the registration of licences issued by another Member State
1. Arguments of the parties
32. By its first complaint, the Commission alleges that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive by introducing a compulsory and systematic procedure for the registration of licences issued by another Member State where the holders of such licences have taken up normal residence in Spain.
33. Contrary to what the Kingdom of Spain claims, the introduction of such a registration procedure is not essential for the purpose of exercising the discretion available to the Member State of normal residence, under Article 1(3) of the directive, to apply to the holder of a licence issued by another Member State its national rules on the period of validity of licences, medical checks and taxation, and to enter on that licence any information indispensable for administration.
34. According to the Commission, such a measure is manifestly disproportionate to the objective which may be pursued by the Kingdom of Spain under Article 1(3) of the directive. That objective could be attained by measures less restrictive than compulsory and systematic registration of licences, through the use of roadside checks and by informing the holders of licences issued by another Member State, at the time of formalising their normal residence in Spain, of the obligations they have under the Spanish rules on the period of validity of licences and medical checks.
35. Nor, according to the Commission, can the registration procedure at issue be based, as the Kingdom of Spain claims, on Article 8(2) of the directive, under which the Member State of normal residence may apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, have the licence exchanged for that purpose. The effectiveness of systems which take account of reoffending can be ensured by recording the details of the licence only upon the first offence.
36. For its part, the Spanish Government denies that the registration procedure at issue is contrary to the principle of the mutual recognition of licences provided for in Article 1(2) of the directive, since it cannot be compared with a compulsory exchange procedure and does not involve taking additional tests.
37. Moreover, the system of registration in question is the only way for the Spanish authorities to be aware of all drivers holding licences issued by another Member State who have settled in Spain and accordingly apply to them the national provisions on the period of validity of licences, medical checks or taxation, in accordance with Article 1(3) of the directive. Furthermore, even if the registration procedure at issue constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of persons, that obstacle is proportionate to the objective pursued by the directive. Finally, according to the Spanish Government, for the purpose of applying the relevant Spanish provisions in accordance with Article 8(2) of the directive, the aforementioned procedure makes it possible to ascertain whether the holder of a licence issued by another Member State has already been penalised for road traffic offences and in that way to establish whether there are aggravating circumstances in case of reoffending.
38. As for the United Kingdom Government, which has intervened in support of the Spanish Government, it is of the opinion that a procedure for the compulsory and systematic registration of licences issued by another Member State is in conformity with the directive provided that the penalties incurred for infringement of the obligation to register are proportionate.
Informing the holders of such licences of the obligations they have under national law and carrying out roadside checks are not sufficient to ensure compliance with national law by the holders in question.
2. Assessment
39. I take the view that that first complaint is well founded.
40. According to settled case‑law, Article 1(2) of the directive provides for the mutual recognition, without any formality, of licences issued by Member States. (17) That provision imposes on Member States a clear and precise obligation which leaves the Member States no discretion as to the measures to be adopted in order to comply with it. (18)
41. In the judgment in Commission
v Netherlands, cited above, the Court inferred from that that ‘if registration of a … licence issued by another Member State becomes an obligation because holders of such a licence are subject to a sanction if, after having taken up residence in the host Member State, they operate a motor vehicle without having registered their … licence, such registration must be deemed to constitute a formality … and is thus contrary to Article 1(2) of [the] directive’. (19) The Court was careful to point out that the nature of the fine (administrative or criminal) to which drivers who have not registered their driving licences within the prescribed time-period are subject is irrelevant because the very existence of a sanction, of whatever nature, necessarily makes the registration in question compulsory. (20)
42. That case‑law can be applied to the Spanish registration procedure. It is established that the holder of a licence issued by another Member State, who is able to provide proof of normal residence in Spain for more than six months, is considered to commit an offence punishable by a fine if he drives a vehicle in Spain without having registered his licence there. (21) The existence of such a sanction necessarily makes the registration in question compulsory. Consequently, such registration constitutes a formality contrary to the principle of the mutual recognition of licences laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive.
43. The discretion available to the Member State of residence, under Article 1(3) of the directive, to apply to the holder of a licence issued by another Member State its national rules on the period of validity of a licence, medical checks and taxation, and to enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration, cannot invalidate that conclusion.
44. In the judgment in Commission
v Netherlands
cited above, the Court held that, ‘although road traffic safety, which is the objective pursued by Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439, is among the imperative reasons of public interest which may justify a restriction on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty, and although the measure in dispute here is in effect applied to Netherlands nationals and nationals of other Member States alike and appears to be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued, the compulsory registration of driving licences goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued’. (22)
45. The Court based its finding on inter alia the following considerations.
46. First, it took the view that the fact that a licence issued by another Member State is not registered in the Member State of residence does not prevent the authorities of that Member State of residence from duly applying their national provisions on the duration of validity of licences by adding the relevant number of years to the date of issue stated on such a licence when roadside checks are carried out. (23)
47. The Court added that the registration at issue is also not essential in order to enable the competent authorities to ensure that the national provisions governing the renewal of driving licences and medical examinations have been complied with, since it is for the holder of a licence to prove that the relevant provisions have been complied with. According to the Court, it is therefore sufficient to inform holders of licences issued by other Member States of the obligations they have under national legislation when they take the steps necessary to take up residence in the Member State in question and apply the sanctions provided for in the event of non-compliance with those obligations. (24)
48. Those considerations, which concerned the Netherlands procedure for the compulsory registration of licences, are necessarily also applicable to the Spanish procedure of an identical nature. It follows that, contrary to what the Spanish Government maintains, such a registration procedure is not essential in order to enable the Member State of residence to exercise the discretion available to it under Article 1(3) of the directive. Accordingly, those provisions of the directive are not capable of justifying the breach of the principle of the mutual recognition of licences entailed by the introduction of the registration procedure at issue.
49. In my opinion, the same is true of the discretion available to the Member State of residence under Article 8(2) of the directive to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, to have that licence exchanged for that purpose.
50. I would point out that those provisions cover the situation where the holder of a licence issued by another Member State is accused of committing a road traffic offence in the territory of the Member State of residence and where the competent authorities of that Member State intend to impose on him, as a penalty, a measure removing or restricting his right to drive, the effects of which are limited to the territory of that Member State. (25)
51. Like the Commission, I am of the opinion that the registration at issue goes beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of road safety pursued by the provisions of Article 8(2) of the directive.
52. The fact that a licence issued by another Member State is not registered in Spain does not prevent the Spanish authorities from duly applying their national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive and, if necessary, having the licence in question exchanged for that purpose.
53. First, I assume that there is nothing to prevent the application of such provisions where the holder of that licence has committed in Spanish territory a serious road traffic offence which would in itself justify the imposition of a driving disqualification.
54. Second, where, as the Kingdom of Spain points out, the imposition on the holder of that licence of any measure removing or restricting the right to drive (for committing a road traffic offence in Spanish territory) depends on whether he has any previous convictions (in Spanish territory), it is sufficient, in order for the Spanish authorities to be able duly to apply their relevant provisions (in accordance with Article 8(2) of the directive), that the competent authorities indicate the existence of such previous convictions on the licence of the person concerned (in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(3) of, in conjunction with point 4 of Annex I to, the directive), or, as the Commission suggests, that they record such details each time an offence is found to have been committed.
55. Finally, even where the previous convictions of the holder of the licence in question relate to offences committed in another Member State before he took up residence in Spain and the Spanish legislation provides, in that particular circumstance, that the penalties incurred are to be increased, (26) it is possible that the Spanish authorities would be in a position to know of the existence of such previous convictions since those details may have been indicated on the licence of the person concerned by the Member State of issue or by a previous Member State of residence (pursuant to the provisions of Article 1(3) of, in conjunction with point 4 of Annex I to, the directive). In any event, even where such a record (if it exists) has not been transferred onto the licence in question, that cannot constitute a sufficient reason for introducing the contested procedure for the compulsory and systematic registration of licences issued by another Member State. (27)
56. It follows from all those considerations that the Spanish procedure for the compulsory and systematic registration of licences issued by another Member State is contrary to the principle of mutual recognition laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive. I therefore conclude that the first complaint is well founded.
B – The second complaint, relating to the compulsory exchange of certain licences issued by another Member State for a Spanish licence
57. By its second complaint, the Commission alleges that, by making it compulsory, under Article 25(2) of the Reglamento de Conductores, to exchange a licence issued by another Member State for a Spanish licence when there is no longer any space to record details essential for administration (dates of regular medical checks), the Kingdom of Spain has infringed the provisions of point 4 of Annex I to the directive.
58. In that regard, the discretion available to the Member State of residence under Article 1(3) of the directive to enter on a licence issued by another Member State any information essential for administration is expressly made conditional, by point 4 of Annex I to the directive, on the availability of a space for that purpose on the licence.
59. It follows that to require the exchange of that licence where there is no space for that purpose amounts to widening the scope of such a discretion, in disregard of the wording of Article 1(3) of the directive.
60. Contrary to what the Spanish Government claims, such an obligation to exchange a licence necessarily runs counter to the intention of the Community legislature since the latter intended to confine the exchange of licences to a very limited number of cases which are listed exhaustively in Article 8(1) (voluntary exchange) and (2) (compulsory exchange in connection with the application of a measure restricting the right to drive) of the directive.
Article 8(2) of the directive, which provides for the only case of compulsory exchange of a licence, certainly does not cover the situation where there is not the space necessary for the purpose of entering on a licence any information essential for administration.
61. I therefore conclude that the second complaint in the application is well founded.
C – The third complaint, relating to the conditions for the renewal or extension of licences issued in Spain prior to the transposition of the directive into Spanish law
1. Arguments of the parties
62. By this third complaint, the Commission alleges that by providing, in the seventh transitional provision of the Reglamento de Conductores, that the holder of a Spanish licence issued in accordance with the previous national legislation is entitled to an extension of the period of validity of his licence provided that he satisfies the conditions relating to mental and physical fitness laid down by that previous national legislation, even if he does not satisfy the conditions relating to physical and mental
fitness now laid down by the Reglamento de Conductores in accordance with the directive, the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 7(1)(a) of the directive.
63. The Spanish Government raises an objection to the admissibility of this complaint on the ground that the Commission made it for the first time only at the stage of the application.
On the substance, that government argues that, under its national law, a provision of a regulation which does not recognise rights acquired pursuant to a statutory rule is unlawful, so that the Reglamento de Conductores cannot refuse the holder of a licence who satisfies the medical conditions laid down by the previous national legislation an extension of the validity of his licence.
2. Assessment
64. Contrary to what the Spanish Government maintains, this third complaint was clearly set out by the Commission at the pre‑litigation stage, both in the letter of formal notice and in the reasoned opinion, (28) which moreover gave rise to observations in this connection on the part of the Spanish authorities. (29) There is therefore no reason to declare this complaint inadmissible.
65. On the substance, I take the view that this complaint should be upheld.
66. It is clear from Article 7(1)(a) of the directive, read in the light of Annex III to which it refers, that the first issue of a driving licence and any renewal of that licence are conditional upon the holder’s meeting certain minimum standards relating to physical and mental fitness for driving a motor vehicle. Those minimum standards are applicable to anyone wishing to have a licence issued or renewed, including holders of licences issued prior to the entry into force of the directive who seek to have their licence renewed after the entry into force of that directive.
67. It is plain that the seventh transitional provision of the Reglamento de Conductores is intended to exclude holders of licences issued before the entry into force of the directive, who wish to have the validity of their licences extended after its entry into force, from the obligation laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of that directive to meet the minimum medical standards defined in Annex III thereto.
68. To deal with the Spanish Government’s argument, I would add that the Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions existing in its internal legal system, even of a constitutional nature, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations arising from Community law. (30)
69. I therefore conclude that the third complaint is well founded.
V – Conclusion
70. I therefore propose that the Court should:
(1) declare that:
– by adopting rules which provide for the compulsory and systematic registration of a driving licence issued by another Member State when the holder of that licence has taken up normal residence in Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences,
– by adopting rules which provide for the compulsory exchange of a driving licence issued by another Member State for a Spanish driving licence when there is no longer any space to record details essential for administration, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under point 4 of Annex I to Directive 91/439, and
– by adopting rules which provide that the holder of a Spanish driving licence issued in accordance with the previous national legislation is entitled to an extension of the period of validity of his licence provided that he satisfies the conditions relating to mental and physical fitness laid down by the previous national legislation, even if he does not satisfy the conditions relating to physical and mental fitness now laid down by the aforementioned rules,
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 91/439;
(2) order the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, and
(3) declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are to bear their own costs.
(1) .
(2)
–	OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1, hereinafter ‘the directive’.
(3)
–	Hereinafter ‘licences’.
(4)
–	Council Directive of 4 December 1980 on the introduction of a Community driving licence (OJ 1980 L 375, p. 1).
(5)
–	Article 6 of the directive.
(6)
–	Article 7(1)(a) of the directive.
(7)
–	Idem.
(8)
–	Annex III to the directive lists a number of minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle.
(9)
–	Article 1(3).
(10)
–	That statement is also included in Annex Ia(3)(a) to the directive as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), which entered into force on 18 September 1996. Annex Ia gives Member States the option of issuing licences in accordance with a model different from the traditional paper model provided for in Annex I to the directive. That second model licence takes the form of a polycarbonate card of the type used inter alia for credit cards.
(11)
–	BOE No 135 of 6 June 1997, p. 17348.
(12)
–	In its application (see the footnote on page 9), the Commission refers in this connection to Article 67 of the Ley sobre Tráfico, Circulación de Vehículos a Motor y Seguridad Vial (Law on Traffic, Driving of Motor Vehicles and Road Safety), which, it states, provides for a fine ranging from EUR 94 to EUR 1 503.
The possibility of a fine being imposed was confirmed at the hearing by the Spanish Government.
(13)
–	See inter alia the judgments in Case C‑58/94 Netherlands
v Council
[1996] ECR I‑2169, paragraphs 20 to 22; Case C‑150/94 United Kingdom
v Council
[1998] ECR I‑7235, paragraph 36, and Case C‑377/98 Netherlands
v Parliament and Council
[2001] ECR I‑7079, paragraphs 7 to 11.
(14)
–	Case C‑155/91 [1993] ECR I‑939.
(15)
–	Ibid. (paragraph 24).
(16)
–	Point 13 of the Opinion.
(17)
–	Judgments in Case C‑193/94 Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos
[1996] ECR I‑929, paragraph 26, Case C‑230/97 Awoyemi
[1998] ECR I‑6781, paragraph 41, and Case C‑246/00 Commission
v Netherlands
[2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 60; and orders (not published in the ECR) of 11 December 2003 in Case C‑408/02 Silva Carvalho, paragraph 20, and 29 January 2004 in Case C‑253/01 Krüger, paragraph 25.
(18)
–	Judgments in Skanavi and Chryssanthokopoulos, paragraph 26, Awoyemi, paragraph 42, Commission
v Netherlands, paragraph 61, and orders in Silva Carvalho, paragraph 20, and Krüger, paragraph 25, all cited above.
(19)
–	Paragraph 62.
(20)
–	Commission
v Netherlands, cited above, paragraphs 64 and 65.
(21)
–	Point 12 of this Opinion.
(22)
–	Paragraph 67.
(23)
–	Commission
v Netherlands, cited above, paragraph 68. See also the order in Krüger, cited above, paragraph 27.
(24)
–	Commission
v Netherlands, cited above, paragraph 69. See also the order in Krüger, cited above, paragraph 28.
(25)
–	See my Opinion in Case C‑476/01 Kapper, pending before the Court, point 68.
(26)
–	I leave aside the situation where licences are endorsed with penalty points since up to now the Kingdom of Spain has not introduced such a system.
(27)
–	I would point out that the question of the possible unavailability to the Member State of residence of any record of previous offences committed by the driver in another Member State should virtually cease to arise if the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on Driving Disqualifications (OJ 1998 C 216, p. 2) enters into force. Articles 3 and 8 of that convention provide that the Member State in the territory of which certain road traffic offences that have given rise to driving disqualifications were committed is to notify the Member State of residence of the drivers concerned of such disqualifications without delay, for purposes of enforcement. To date, that convention has not yet entered into force, since not all the ratifications necessary for that purpose have been obtained.
(28)
–	Point 4 of the letter of formal notice and of the reasoned opinion (Annexes 2 and 4 to the application).
(29)
–	Point 5 of the Spanish authorities’ reply to the letter of formal notice (Annex 3 to the application).
(30)
–	See inter alia Case C‑323/97 Commission
v Belgium
[1998] ECR I‑4281.