Case C-221/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2007 — Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, social security, social-security benefit, war victim

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,