WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. How motorists in a neighbouring EU country obtain a driving licence to replace one withdrawn as a result of a traffic violation.
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, disclosure of information, driving licence, frontier region, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, residence, traffic regulations

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/183

(2004/C 58 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: How motorists in a neighbouring EU country obtain a driving licence to replace one withdrawn as

a result of a traffic violation

Is the Commission aware that advertisements are being aimed at drivers who have infringed traffic
1.
laws in Germany and had their licences withdrawn, offering them the opportunity to enrol for at least 185
days at an address in the Netherlands and, for an increased fee, to have driving lessons and take a driving
test in any Netherlands municipality so that they may hold a legally valid driving licence in Germany again
without having to take the psychological test required for any re-issue of a withdrawn driving licence?

Can this abuse be confirmed only if such drivers with their new driving licences are involved in a

2.
serious traffic violation or a major road accident?

How can the Commission explain this recent sharp increase in cross-border driving lessons and tests

3.
in the Netherlands Limburg province which borders Germany?

Is this state of affairs encouraged by the fact that exchange of data between the EU Member States is
4.
prohibited on the grounds of protection of privacy, with the result that the German authorities are
prevented from informing their Dutch counterparts of the withdrawal of a driving licence and that the
Dutch authorities may not seek such information?

5.
How can it be guaranteed that traffic violators may no longer be able to benefit from the fact that
the Member States apply systems which work in parallel and have no connection with each other? What is
the Commission doing to change this situation?

Source:The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Commission has noted that the Dutch press this summer reported a sharp rise in the number of
German nationals establishing themselves in the Netherlands to obtain a driving licence. The practices to
which the Honourable Member refers have been known for many years as ‘driving licence tourism’ and are
therefore not new. Driving licence tourism has been repeatedly discussed by the Committee on driving
licensing and has led to the adoption by the Committee of a position which has been formalised by the
Commission in a ‘Commission interpretative document on Community driver licensing’ (1).

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driver licensing (2) lays down the conditions for issuing
driving licences. Apart from undergoing driving tests and a check of physical and mental fitness, each
candidate must have their normal residence in the country issuing the licence. However, the above
Directive also states that no person may hold a driving licence for more than one Member State (3) and
that the Member States must assist one another in the implementation of the Directive (4). It is therefore
the responsibility of the Dutch authorities to check whether the candidate in question has genuinely met
the requirements for issuing a driving licence and in particular whether the person concerned has his or
her normal residence in the Netherlands. The Court of
Justice recently confirmed, as regards the
interpretative document, that this is the case (5). It is also the responsibility of the Dutch authorities to
contact the German authorities if they have good reason (age, driving test) to believe that the candidate
might already hold a driving licence. The Commission therefore believes that the necessary means are in
place to act even when a licence is being issued and that the Directive requires the Member States to
establish the necessary means for this purpose.

The Commission does not have any figures on this subject. However, it wishes to inform the Honourable
Member that the subject of driving licence tourism has been regularly reappearing for several years.

C 58 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

information between two
Data protection does not mean there cannot be a one-off exchange of
Member States on a specific person. It is simply a matter of asking whether the person concerned holds a
driving licence (whether or not withdrawn) in the Member State concerned.

Individual Member States should not act in parallel with each other. The Commission wishes to emphasise
that the means for which Directive 91/439/EEC provides should suffice for this purpose. However, at a
meeting on 22 July 2003 with government experts on driving licences, the Commission proposed setting
up a computer network to facilitate the exchange of information between Member States to combat
driving licence tourism more effectively. Once a feasibility study has been carried out and such a network
has been set up, it could be operational towards the end of 2004.

(1) Commission interpretative document on Community driver licensing, OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Article 7(1).
(3) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Article 7(5).
(4) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Article 12(3).
(5) C-246/00, Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, 10 July 2003, paragraph 75.

(2004/C 58 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2581/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Course of events involving the whistleblower at the European Court of Auditors 1: opinion and
composition of the disciplinary committee and the deafening silence of senior management

Can the Commission confirm that, on his birthday, 17 July 2003, Robert Dougal Watt, an official at
1.
the European Court of Auditors who, in April 2002, blew the whistle on wrongdoings at the Court and,
shortly afterwards, received the support of 40 % of the Court of Auditors’ staff, received notice of dismissal
from his Secretary-General?

2.
Does the Commission acknowledge that officials are driven to whistleblowing because of the lack of
reaction to the initial warning reports that they submit to their superiors? Does it duly acknowledge that
the lack of any reaction whatsoever from the superiors may lead to an escalation in feelings and use of
language which culminates in an unwanted outcome for everybody but, ultimately, in many instances,
simply for the whistleblower?

3.
Is it true that the Commission regards it as the task of senior management to have a formal answer
forwarded to any person who reveals cases of possible wrongdoing in every instance and within a
reasonable time limit? Does the Commission deem it desirable for superiors to remain silent in some
instances if they are asked to make disagreeable observations?

In the light of its encouragement of whistleblowing, is the Commission happy with the measure
4.
in question, when the disciplinary committee
taken by the Secretary-General
repeatedly recommended that the action to be taken against the official should go no further than his
downgrading from A 7 to B 5, itself a significant sanction?

to dismiss the official

Does the Commission deem it desirable that,

in some cases, more than half the members of a
5.
disciplinary committee are members of the authority which is empowered to dismiss the official appearing
before it?

6.
How common is it, since the Commission took office, for a recommendation of a disciplinary
committee which does not find favour with the competent authority to be sent back for a ‘second round’?

How common is it

7.
from the disciplinary
committee that it be allowed to appear in person before the committee as, it is claimed, happened in the
case of the issue which resulted in the dismissal of the Court of Auditors official?

for the competent authority to ignore the request