Case C-340/05: Order of the Court of 28 September 2006 — (reference for a preliminary ruling of Oberlandsgericht München — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of licence in one Member State — Licence issued in another Member State — Refusal to recognise the right to drive in the first Member State — Requirement of compliance with national conditions for obtaining a new licence following a withdrawal)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, traffic regulations

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/23

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Symvoulio
tis Epikratias — Greece) — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias,
ANEK, Minoikes grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries v
Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías, Ypourgos Aigaíou

(Case C-285/05) (1)

2. Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive
98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for
passenger ships must be interpreted as precluding a national rule,
such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits abso-
lutely ships having reached a specified age from carrying out
domestic voyages, when the Member State in question has not
taken measures to improve safety requirements in accordance with
the procedure laid down by Article 7(4) of that directive.

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EEC)
No 3577/92 — Maritime cabotage — Transitional period —
Direct application — Directive 98/18/EC — Safety rules and
standards for passenger ships — Compatibility of a national
rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of
ships having reached a specific age)

(1) OJ C 243 of 1.10.2005.

(2006/C 326/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:
grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries

Enosi

Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes

Defendants: Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías, Ypourgos Aigaíou

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikratias
— Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 4 and 6(3) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the
principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p.
7) — Ability of individuals to rely on the regulation to challenge
the validity of a national rule adopted before the end of the
exemption laid down by the regulation — Interpretation of Arti-
cles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c),
(f) and (g) of Council Directive
98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for
passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1) — Compatibility of a
national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in
respect of ships having reached a specified age

Operative part of the order

1. Having regard to Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom
to provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage), the latter must be interpreted as not confer-
ring rights on individuals, before 1 January 2004, in the area of
cabotage with the Greek islands for regular passenger and cargo
less than 650 gross
services and services provided by vessels of
tonnes.

Order of the Court of 28 September 2006 — (reference for
a preliminary ruling of Oberlandsgericht München —
Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer

(Case C-340/05) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of
driving licences — Withdrawal of licence in one Member
State — Licence issued in another Member State — Refusal
to recognise the right to drive in the first Member State —
for
Requirement of compliance with national

conditions

obtaining a new licence following a withdrawal)

(2006/C 326/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandsgericht München (Germany)

Criminal proceedings against

Stefan Kremer

Action

for

a preliminary

Reference
ruling — Oberlandsgericht
München — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of
Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the
validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State,
raised against the holder having had his national licence with-
drawn without a prohibition period, due to repeated offences
under the road traffic act — Obligation to provide beforehand a
medical-psychological opinion attesting to aptitude to drive

C 326/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby orders:

The combined provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council
Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as
amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a
Member State from refusing to recognise, on its territory, the right to
drive resulting from a driving licence issued in another Member State
and, accordingly, the validity of that licence so long as the holder of
that licence, whose previous licence in the territory of the first Member
State was withdrawn without a measure prohibiting the holder from
obtaining a new licence, has not complied with the conditions required
under the laws of that first Member State for the issuance of a new
licence following that withdrawal, including an examination of aptitude
to drive attesting that the grounds for that withdrawal are no longer
present.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Lucien de Graaf,
Gudula Daniels v Belgian State

system — Obligation to pay the contribution even where a
person is liable to pay contributions to a social security system
other than that of the State of residence — Whether compatible
with Article 39 EC

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te
Antwerpen, by decision of 29 November 2005, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 36 of 11.2.2006.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Berlin lodged on 24 February 2006 — Irene Werich v
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

(Case C-111/06)

(2006/C 326/48)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-436/05) (1)

(Preliminary references — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 326/47)

Referring court

Sozialgericht Berlin

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties

Applicants: Lucien de Graaf, Gudula Daniels

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te
Antwerpen — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community, as
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — Material scope —
Whether applicable or not to a supplementary crisis contribu-
tion levied by a Member State to finance its social security

Applicant: Irene Werich

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

Question referred

social

security schemes

to employed persons,

Is the provision in point (1) of Annex VI. D.
(formerly C.)
Germany to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application
to self-
of
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community (Regulation No 1408/71) compatible
with higher-ranking European law, in particular the principle of
freedom of movement and the principle of the exportability of
benefits under Article 42 of the Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Community (EC Treaty),
inasmuch as it also rules out
pension benefits in respect of contribution periods for which
compulsory contributions were paid under the insurance legisla-
tion of the German Reich?

(1) OJ English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416.