(2004/C58E/196) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2578/03
byErikMeijer(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(6August2003)
Subject:HowmotoristsinaneighbouringEUcountryobtainadrivinglicencetoreplaceonewithdrawnas
aresultofatrafficviolation
1. IstheCommissionawarethatadvertisementsarebeingaimedatdriverswhohaveinfringedtraffic
lawsinGermanyandhadtheirlicenceswithdrawn,offeringthemtheopportunitytoenrolforatleast185daysatanaddressintheNetherlandsand,foranincreasedfee,tohavedrivinglessonsandtakeadrivingtestinanyNetherlandsmunicipalitysothattheymayholdalegallyvaliddrivinglicenceinGermanyagainwithouthavingtotakethepsychologicaltestrequiredforanyre-issueofawithdrawndrivinglicence?
2. Canthisabusebeconfirmedonlyifsuchdriverswiththeirnewdrivinglicencesareinvolvedina
serioustrafficviolationoramajorroadaccident?
3. HowcantheCommissionexplainthisrecentsharpincreaseincross-borderdrivinglessonsandtests
intheNetherlandsLimburgprovincewhichbordersGermany?
4. IsthisstateofaffairsencouragedbythefactthatexchangeofdatabetweentheEUMemberStatesis
prohibited on the grounds of protection of privacy, with the result that the German authorities arepreventedfrominformingtheirDutchcounterpartsofthewithdrawalofadrivinglicenceandthattheDutchauthoritiesmaynotseeksuchinformation?
5. Howcanitbeguaranteedthattrafficviolatorsmaynolongerbeabletobenefitfromthefactthat
theMemberStatesapplysystemswhichworkinparallelandhavenoconnectionwitheachother?WhatistheCommissiondoingtochangethissituation?
Source:The18July2003editionof‘RotterdamsDagblad’,aDutchnewspaper
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(22September2003)
TheCommissionhasnotedthattheDutchpressthissummerreportedasharpriseinthenumberof
GermannationalsestablishingthemselvesintheNetherlandstoobtainadrivinglicence.Thepracticesto
whichtheHonourableMemberrefershavebeenknownformanyyearsas‘drivinglicencetourism’andare
thereforenotnew.DrivinglicencetourismhasbeenrepeatedlydiscussedbytheCommitteeondrivinglicensingandhasledtotheadoptionbytheCommitteeofapositionwhichhasbeenformalisedbytheCommissionina‘CommissioninterpretativedocumentonCommunitydriverlicensing’(
1).
CouncilDirective91/439/EECof29July1991ondriverlicensing(2)laysdowntheconditionsforissuing
drivinglicences.Apartfromundergoingdrivingtestsandacheckofphysicalandmentalfitness,eachcandidate must have their normal residence in the country issuing the licence. However, the aboveDirectivealsostatesthatnopersonmayholdadrivinglicenceformorethanoneMemberState(
3)and
thattheMemberStatesmustassistoneanotherintheimplementationoftheDirective(4).Itistherefore
theresponsibilityoftheDutchauthoritiestocheckwhetherthecandidateinquestionhasgenuinelymettherequirementsforissuingadrivinglicenceandinparticularwhetherthepersonconcernedhashisorher normal residence in the Netherlands. The Court of Justice recently confirmed, as regards theinterpretativedocument,thatthisisthecase(
5).ItisalsotheresponsibilityoftheDutchauthoritiesto
contacttheGermanauthoritiesiftheyhavegoodreason(age,drivingtest)tobelievethatthecandidatemightalreadyholdadrivinglicence.TheCommissionthereforebelievesthatthenecessarymeansareinplacetoactevenwhenalicenceisbeingissuedandthattheDirectiverequirestheMemberStatestoestablishthenecessarymeansforthispurpose.
TheCommissiondoesnothaveanyfiguresonthissubject.However,itwishestoinformtheHonourable
Memberthatthesubjectofdrivinglicencetourismhasbeenregularlyreappearingforseveralyears.6.3.2004EN C58E/183 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
Data protection does not mean there cannot be a one-off exchange of information between two
MemberStatesonaspecificperson.Itissimplyamatterofaskingwhetherthepersonconcernedholdsadrivinglicence(whetherornotwithdrawn)intheMemberStateconcerned.
IndividualMemberStatesshouldnotactinparallelwitheachother.TheCommissionwishestoemphasise
thatthemeansforwhichDirective91/439/EECprovidesshouldsufficeforthispurpose.However,ata
meetingon22July2003withgovernmentexpertsondrivinglicences,theCommissionproposedsetting
up a computer network to facilitate the exchange of information between Member States to combatdrivinglicencetourismmoreeffectively.Onceafeasibilitystudyhasbeencarriedoutandsuchanetworkhasbeensetup,itcouldbeoperationaltowardstheendof2004.
(1) CommissioninterpretativedocumentonCommunitydriverlicensing,OJC77,28.3.2002,p.2.
(2) OJL237,24.8.1991,Article7(1).
(3) OJL237,24.8.1991,Article7(5).
(4) OJL237,24.8.1991,Article12(3).
(5) C-246/00,CommissionvKingdomoftheNetherlands,10July2003,paragraph75.
(2004/C58E/197) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2581/03
byErikMeijer(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(6August2003)
Subject:CourseofeventsinvolvingthewhistleblowerattheEuropeanCourtofAuditors1:opinionand
compositionofthedisciplinarycommitteeandthedeafeningsilenceofseniormanagement
1. CantheCommissionconfirmthat,onhisbirthday,17July2003,RobertDougalWatt,anofficialat
theEuropeanCourtofAuditorswho,inApril2002,blewthewhistleonwrongdoingsattheCourtand,shortlyafterwards,receivedthesupportof40%oftheCourtofAuditors’staff,receivednoticeofdismissalfromhisSecretary-General?
2. DoestheCommissionacknowledgethatofficialsaredriventowhistleblowingbecauseofthelackof
reactiontotheinitialwarningreportsthattheysubmittotheirsuperiors?Doesitdulyacknowledgethat
thelackofanyreactionwhatsoeverfromthesuperiorsmayleadtoanescalationinfeelingsanduseof
languagewhichculminatesinanunwantedoutcomeforeverybodybut,ultimately,inmanyinstances,simplyforthewhistleblower?
3. IsittruethattheCommissionregardsitasthetaskofseniormanagementtohaveaformalanswer
forwarded to any person who reveals cases of possible wrongdoing in every instance and within areasonabletimelimit?DoestheCommissiondeemitdesirableforsuperiorstoremainsilentinsomeinstancesiftheyareaskedtomakedisagreeableobservations?
4. Inthelightofitsencouragementofwhistleblowing,istheCommissionhappywiththemeasure
taken by the Secretary-General to dismiss the official in question, when the disciplinary committeerepeatedlyrecommendedthattheactiontobetakenagainsttheofficialshouldgonofurtherthanhisdowngradingfromA7toB5,itselfasignificantsanction?
5. Doesthe Commissiondeem it desirable that, in somecases, more than half the members ofa
disciplinarycommitteearemembersoftheauthoritywhichisempoweredtodismisstheofficialappearingbeforeit?
6. How common is it, since the Commission took office, for a recommendation of a disciplinary
committeewhichdoesnotfindfavourwiththecompetentauthoritytobesentbackfora‘secondround’?
7. How common is it for the competent authority to ignore the request from the disciplinary
committeethatitbeallowedtoappearinpersonbeforethecommitteeas,itisclaimed,happenedinthecaseoftheissuewhichresultedinthedismissaloftheCourtofAuditorsofficial?C58E/184 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion