Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a host Member State permitting that State to refuse to recognise, within its territory, a driving licence issued by another Member State when the holder of that licence has not been made, by that host Member State, the subject of any measure as provided for in Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 or the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, but has been refused the issue of a first driving licence in that host State on the ground that he did not satisfy, under that State’s legislation, the physical and mental requirements for the safe driving of a motor vehicle.

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 on driving licences must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a host Member State permitting that State to refuse to recognise, within its territory, a driving licence issued in another Member State when it is established, on the basis of indisputable information emanating from the issuing Member State, that the holder of the driving licence did not satisfy the condition of normal residence laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 and in Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2006/126 at the time when that licence was issued. In that respect, the fact that that information is conveyed, not directly but only indirectly, by the issuing Member State to the competent authorities of the host Member State in the form of a notification by third parties, is not, in itself, capable of making it impossible to regard that information as emanating from the issuing Member State, in so far as it comes from an authority of that Member State.

It is for the referring court to determine whether the information so obtained may be classified as information emanating from the issuing Member State and, if necessary, to evaluate that information and to assess, taking into account all the facts of the dispute before it, whether it constitutes indisputable information demonstrating that the holder of the licence was not normally resident in the territory of that latter State at the time when his driving licence was issued. In the context of that assessment, the referring court can take into account all the circumstances of the dispute before it. In particular, it can take into account the possibility that information from the issuing Member State may show that the holder of the driving licence was present in the territory of that State only for a very brief period and that he had established a purely fictional place of residence within its territory, with the sole aim of avoiding application of stricter conditions laid down for the issue of a driving licence in the Member State in which he was in fact resident. It must, however, be pointed out that, as it is inherent in the exercise of his right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, which is conferred on citizens of the Union by Article 21(1) TFEU and recognised by Directives 91/439 and 2006/126, the fact that the holder of a driving licence has established his residence in a given Member State with the purpose of benefiting from less stringent legislation concerning the conditions for the issuing of a driving licence does not, of itself, enable a finding of failure to observe the condition of normal residence laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(e) of those directives, respectively, justifying the refusal by a Member State to recognise the driving licence issued in another Member State.

(see paras 75-77, operative part 2)