Case C-227/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of 4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, traffic regulations

C 182/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit
2004.

for transposing the dirctive was 5 February

(1) OJ L 208 of 05.08.2002, p. 10.

Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

subject

to treatment which is more rigorous

its obligations
under Articles 4 and 5 of the directive. Those two articles
require that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, urban
waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000
inhabitants is to be subject to treatment which is more
rigorous than secondary treatment before being discharged
in sensitive areas. However, not all waste water from Sueca
is
than
secondary treatment before being discharged into a sensi-
tive area in the sea. Nor is most of the waste water from
the agglomerations of the region of La Ribera subject to
appropriate treatment before being discharged into the
same sensitive area. The coastal districts of Sueca (El
Perelló, Las Palmeres, Mareny de Barraquetes, Playa del Rey
and Boga de Mar), with a population in summer of 37 000
— 51 000 persons, only subject their water to secondary
treatment before it is discharged into the same sensitive
area.

(Case C-219/05)

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40

(2005/C 182/56)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia, Agent, J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez
Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to subject the urban waste water
its districts and certain municipalities of La
from Sueca,
Ribera (Valencia) to appropriate treatment before dischar-
ging it in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and
5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water treatment;

2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Article 3 of the directive. In accordance with that
article, Member States are to ensure that collecting systems
are provided at
the latest by 31 December 1998 for
agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than
10 000 when they discharge urban waste waters into
receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’. Both
the agglomeration of Sueca and the majority of the agglom-
erations of the region of La Ribera in the province of
Valencia have a population equivalent of more than 10 000
and discharge their water into an area which has been
declared ‘sensitive’. However, they have not yet provided
collecting systems for all the waste water of those towns.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of
4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-227/05)

(2005/C 182/57)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsger-
icht München (Germany) of 23 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 4 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Daniel Halbritter and Freistaat Bayern on
the following questions:

1. Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of
Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
Member State within its territory is precluded from refusing
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State even where, in the territory of the
first Member State, a measure withdrawing or cancelling a
driving licence issued by that State has been taken against
the holder of the driving licence, if the ban on obtaining a
new driving licence in that Member State, with which that
measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence
was issued by the other Member State and

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/33

(a) where the law of the first Member State is based on the
premiss that evidence of fitness to drive as a substantive
condition for restoration of a driving licence must be
adduced in the form of a medical-psychological report
specifically governed by national legislation and ordered
by the authorities (which has not yet been done)

and/or

(b) where under national law there is an entitlement in the
territory of the first Member State to be granted the
right to make use of an EU driving licence issued after
the expiry of the ban if the internal reasons for the with-
drawal or for the ban no longer exist?

2. Should Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4)
of Directive 91/439/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, in
the event of an application for a driving licence to be
granted to the holder of a driving licence from another
Member State being made by handing over the driving
licence of that other Member State (so-called ‘reregistration’),
a Member State, simply by virtue of the EU driving licence
is
having been granted by that other Member State,
precluded from conducting a further examination of fitness
— as stated by its internal law to be a condition for the
grant of a licence and regulated therein — having regard to
the circumstances in existence at
the EU
driving licence was granted?

the time that

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

3. order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested judgment:

— first, infringed the rights of the defence and the interests of
the applicant, in that the Court of First Instance committed
several procedural irregularities and made several manifest
errors of assessment and vitiated the contested judgment by
not stating reasons, and

— second,

infringed Community law by not drawing any
consequences from the breach by the defendant of its obli-
gations concerning the transmission of correspondence to
its staff and the treatment within a reasonable time of its
staff's affairs, by virtue of the general principle of sound
administration.

Removal from the register of Case C-384/03 (1)

(2005/C 182/59)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

By order of 28 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-384/03: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

Appeal brought on 26 May 2005 by L against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case
T-254/02 L v Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

(Case C-230/05 P)

(2005/C 182/58)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March
2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 26 May 2005 by L, represented by
P. Legros and S. Rodrigues, avocats.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the contested judgment of

the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities of 9 March 2005 in
Case T-254/02;

2. uphold the claims for annulment and compensation made

at first instance;

Removal from the register of Case C-440/03 (1)

(2005/C 182/60)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-440/03: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.