Case C-187/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of Hüseyin Gözütok
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU legal system, Germany, Netherlands, Schengen Agreement, interpretation of the law, public prosecution

C 212/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

drive unoccupied Category D motor vehicles on ‘journeys
necessitated by extraordinary circumstances’ without
defining that criterion in any detail.

— Paragraphs 20(4) and 40(5) in conjunction with Para-
graph 20(4) of the Führerscheingesetz are contrary to the
directive, inasmuch as they do not require holders of
Category C1 driving licences to undergo periodic medical
examinations.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 80, 25.3.1999, p. 20.

Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
icht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of
Hüseyin Gözütok

(Case C-178/01)

(2001/C 212/16)

(Case C-187/01)

(2001/C 212/17)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Marie
Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European
Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service
of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by enacting Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the
Führerscheingesetz (Law on driving licences), the Repub-
lic of Austria has infringed the fifth indent of Article 3(1)
of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on
driving licences (1) and that, by enacting Paragraphs 20(4)
and 40(5) in conjunction with Paragraph 20(4) of the
Führerscheingesetz, the Republic of Austria has infringed
point 4 of Annex III to that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the Führerscheingesetz goes fur-
the directive in relation to
ther than Article 3 of
authorisation to drive Category C motor vehicles, inas-
much as it permits an extensive class of persons also to

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 30 March 2001 of the
Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne),
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling under Article 35(1) EC in conjunction
with Paragraph 1(2) EuGHG in the criminal proceedings
against Hüseyin Gözütok on the following question of
interpretation concerning Article 54 of the Convention of
19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of
14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the
common borders (the Schengen Implementing Convention):

Is there a bar to prosecution in the Federal Republic of
Germany under Article 54 of the Schengen Implementing
Convention if, under Netherlands law, a prosecution on the
same facts is barred in the Netherlands?

In particular, is that also the case where a decision by the
Public Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue proceedings after the
fulfilment of conditions (Netherlands ‘transactie’), which under
the law of other Contracting States requires judicial approval,
bars prosecution before a Netherlands court?