Case C-225/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, traffic regulations

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/17

to the Polish registration bodies. Fourth, the Commission rejects
the Polish authorities' argument concerning the Vienna Conven-
tion. In the Commission's view, a lack of appropriate rules at
international level has no effect on the Republic of Poland's obli-
gations in relation to the Community.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Landau/Isar (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2007 — Criminal
proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2007 — Krystyna
Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-221/07)

(2007/C 183/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Question referred

Are the benefit restrictions laid down in German social compen-
sation law under Paragraph 64e of the Bundesversorgungsgesetz
(Federal Law on war pensions — BVG) for those entitled to
pensions who have their residence or habitual abode in Poland
as a new EU accession state consistent with higher-ranking
Community law,
from the point of view of
freedom of movement?

in particular

(Case C-225/07)

(2007/C 183/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Landau/Isar

Party to the main proceedings

Rainer Günther Möginger

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b), 8(2) and (4) and 9 of Council
Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1999 on driving licences (1)
as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997
(hereinafter: the directive) to be interpreted as meaning

that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise
a driving licence issued by another Member State even where
its holder has, in the first Member State, been subject to a
measure withdrawing or cancelling the right to drive issued
by that Member State and where a temporary ban on
obtaining a new right to drive, with which that measure is
coupled, had not yet expired before the date on which the
driving licence was issued by the other Member State?

2. If so:

Is that directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prin-
ciple of mutual recognition may be ignored by the courts
and authorities of the first Member State where, on grounds
of abuse of a right, the holder of the right to drive is barred
in a specific case from relying on the right to drive acquired
in another EU Member State, in particular where an overall
appraisal of the objective circumstances shows that, despite
formal observance of the conditions laid down by the Com-
munity rules, the purpose of the rules in the directive has
not been achieved and where there is a subjective element
consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the
Community rules, in the form of recognition of the right to
drive acquired in another EU Member State, by arbitrarily
creating the conditions laid down for acquiring it,

C 183/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

above all,

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, when the driving licence was issued the
holder of the driving licence had his normal residence in
that Member State and not in the Member State which
issued the driving licence, and

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, it must be assumed, on the basis of objec-
tive and judicially verifiable facts, that the holder of the
right to drive would not have had any possibility of
lawfully acquiring a right to drive in the first Member
State.

2. If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations
of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health
entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the
measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict
compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate
matter PM10?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent
must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce
the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration
of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the
principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while
not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, neverthe-
less contribute in the short
in
ambient air quality?

term to improvements

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 296, p. 55.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter
Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07)

(2007/C 183/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli
the European
and Armagan Candan v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-238/07 P)

(2007/C 183/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, Δικη-
γόρος)

Other party: Commission of the European Communities

Questions referred

Form of order sought

1. Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September
1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1)
to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health
is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan
even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to
enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a
result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10
being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the
public authority?

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— set aside the contested Order

— annul the Respondent's decision of 5 May 2004

— order the Respondent to pay the costs of this appeal