Case C-336/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Manfred Seuke v Landkreis Mittweida
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, technical standard, traffic regulations

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 —
Matthias Zerche v Landkreis Mittweida

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steffen Schubert

(Case C-334/06)

(2006/C 261/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Matthias Zerche

Defendant: Landkreis Mittweida

Questions referred

in the territory of

Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2)
and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1)
to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to
recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by
another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU
driving licence has previously,
the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled
for some reason,
if the ban on the issue of a new driving
licence in that Member State, with which that measure was
coupled, had expired before the driving licence was issued in
the other Member State and if it is to be concluded on the
basis of objective evidence (non-residence in the Member State
issuing the driving licence or the failure of an application for
the national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason
for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circumvent
the strict substantive requirements of national procedure for
the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the need for a
medical/psychological report?

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

Defendant: Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis

Questions referred

1. Is a Member State permitted, in conformity with Article 1(2)
and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC, to require
a holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State
to apply to the national authority of the first Member State
for recognition of the right to drive in its territory where
the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously,
in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving
withdrawn or cancelled for some reason?

If not:

2. Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2)
and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State where the holder of the foreign
EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or
cancelled for some reason, if the ban on the issue of a new
driving licence in that Member State, with which that
measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence
was issued in the other Member State and if it is to be
concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence
in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the
failure of an application for the national driving licence to
be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign
EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive
requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a
driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psycholo-
gical report?

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 —
Manfred Seuke v Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis

(Case C-335/06)

(2006/C 261/20)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 —
Manfred Seuke v Landkreis Mittweida

(Case C-336/06)

(2006/C 261/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

C 261/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Forms of order sought

Applicant: Manfred Seuke

Defendant: Landkreis Mittweida

Questions referred

1. Is a Member State permitted, in conformity with Article 1(2)
and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1),
to
require a holder of a driving licence issued in another
Member State to apply to the national authority of the first
Member State for recognition of the right to drive in its
territory where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence
has previously, in the territory of the first Member State,
had his driving withdrawn or cancelled for some reason?

If not:

2. Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2)
and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State where the holder of the foreign
EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or
cancelled for some reason, if the ban on the issue of a new
driving licence in that Member State, with which that
measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence
was issued in the other Member State and if it is to be
concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence
in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the
failure of an application for the national driving licence to
be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign
EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive
requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a
driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psycholo-
gical report?

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-338/06)

(2006/C 261/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Braun and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

— Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly Council Direc-
tive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 on coordination
of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of
members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of
in respect of the formation of
Article 58 of the Treaty,
public limited liability companies and the maintenance and
alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safe-
guards equivalent, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive, and in particular:

(1) Article 42, read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and
(4), by allowing the general meeting of shareholders to
approve the issue of new shares without pre-emptive
subscription rights, at a price below their fair value;

(2) Article 29(1), by granting the right

to pre-emptive
subscription of shares in the event of a capital increase
by consideration in cash, not only to shareholders, but
also to holders of bonds convertible into shares;

(3) Article 29(6), read in conjunction with Article 29(1), by
granting the right to pre-emptive subscription rights for
bonds convertible into shares not only to shareholders,
but also to the holders of bonds convertible into shares
pertaining to earlier issues;

(4) Article 29(6), read in conjunction with Article 29(4), by
failing to provide that the shareholders' meeting may
decide to exclude pre-emptive subscription rights for
bonds convertible into shares.

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Articles 158, 159 and
293 of Royal Legislative Decree 1564/1989 of 22 December
1989 approving the amended text of the Law on companies
incorrectly transpose Directive 77/91/EEC on the
(‘LSA’)
following grounds:

(1) The second subparagraph of Article 159(1)(c) of the LSA is
contrary to Article 42, read in conjunction with Article
29(1) and (4), of Directive 77/91/EEC, in that it permits the
shareholders' meeting to decide to issue new shares without
pre-emptive subscription rights at a price below their
market value;

(2) Article 158(1) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(1) of
Directive 77/91/EEC,
in that it grants the right to pre-
emptive subscription for shares in the event of capital
increase by consideration in cash not only to shareholders,
but also to holders of bonds convertible into shares;

(3) Article 158(1) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(6) of
Directive 77/91/EEC,
read in conjunction with Article
29(1), in that it grants the right to pre-emptive subscription
for bonds convertible into shares not only to shareholders,
but also to the holders of bonds convertible into shares
pertaining to earlier issues;