Joint Cases C-334/06 to C-336/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Matthias Zerche (C-334/06) and Manfred Seuke (C-336/06) v Landkreis Mittweida and Steffen Schubert (C-335/06) v Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol — New licence issued in another Member State — Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State — Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)
Date: 2008-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, technical standard, traffic regulations

C 209/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

administrative decision to withdraw his national driving licence
in his State of residence on grounds of the use of drugs —
Abuse of rights

Operative part of the judgment

1) On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4)
of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it
is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances
such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to
recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving
licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any
period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a
new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence,
so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary condi-
tions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence
following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the exami-
nation of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the
withdrawal are no longer in existence.

In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for
a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to
drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by
another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries
appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable infor-
mation supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that
licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the terri-
tory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier
licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member
State of issue.

2) It

is contrary to Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive
91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003,
for a
Member State bound, in accordance with that directive, to recognise
the right
to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by
another Member State, to suspend that right temporarily while the
latter Member State investigates the procedure followed in the
issuing of that licence. In contrast, in that same context, it is not
contrary to those provisions for a Member State to decide to
suspend that right if it is clear from entries in that licence or from
other incontestable information supplied by that other Member
State that the condition of residence imposed in Article 7(1)(b) of
that directive was not satisfied at the moment when that licence
was issued.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.
OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Chemnitz
(Germany)) — Matthias Zerche
(C-334/06) and Manfred Seuke (C-336/06) v Landkreis
Mittweida and Steffen Schubert (C-335/06) v Landkreis
Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis

(Joint Cases C-334/06 to C-336/06) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving
licences — Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for
use of narcotic drugs or alcohol — New licence issued in
another Member State — Refusal to recognise right to drive
in the first Member State — Residence not in accordance with
Directive 91/439/EEC)

(2008/C 209/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Matthias Zerche
(C-336/06), Steffen Schubert (C-335/06)

(C-334/06), Manfred

Seuke

Defendants: Landkreis Mittweida, Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirg-
skreis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Chem-
nitz (Germany) — Interpretation of Arts. 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
after the expiry of a ban imposed on the holder who has had
his national licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and who has
been unable to produce the medical/psychological report which
is required in order to obtain a new licence in his State of resi-
dence — Abuse of law

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of
Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences,
as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary
to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those
of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its terri-
tory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/7

issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the
person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore,
to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder
has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State
for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous
licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the
grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.

In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a
Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive
stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another
Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in
the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied
by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its
holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member
State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally
resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

Other parties
to the proceedings: Union française de l'express
(UFEX), DHL Express (France) SAS, Federal express international
(France) SNC, CRIE SA (represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and
J. Derenne, avocats), Commission of the European Communities
(represented by C. Giolito, Agent), French Republic (represented
by G. de Bergues and F. Million, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 June 2006 in Case
T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission, by which the latter
annulled Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997
concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chrono-
post, in that it finds that neither the logistical and commercial
assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chrono-
post, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-
Chronopost — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing due
to lack of impartiality of the Court (Chamber partially identical
to that which adopted a previous judgment, quashed by the
Court) — Misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 230 EC
and 253 EC — Failure to apply the concept of State aid and,
therefore, infringement of Article 87 EC

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 —
Chronopost SA (C-341/06 P), La Poste (C-342/06 P) v
Union française de l'express (UFEX), DHL Express (France)
SAS, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA,
French
Commission of

the European Communities,

Republic

Operative part of the judgment

(Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P) (1)

The Court:

(Appeal — Proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court
of First Instance — Judgment of the Court of First Instance
— Quashed — Referral back to the Court of First Instance —
Second judgment of the Court of First Instance — Composi-
tion of the Chamber hearing the case — State aid — Postal
sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of
general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assis-
tance to a subsidiary — Subsidiary not operating in a reserved
sector — Transfer of the express delivery business to that
subsidiary — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Commission decision
— Assistance and transfer not constituting State aid —
Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 209/09)

Language of the case: French

1) Sets aside the judgment of

Instance of

the Court of First

the
European Communities of 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Ufex
and Others v Commission in so far as it (i) annuls Commission
Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State
aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost inasmuch as that deci-
sion finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance
provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the
transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost and
(ii) allocates the burden of costs accordingly;

2) Dismisses the action brought before the Court of First Instance of

the European Communities in Case T-613/97;

3) Orders each of the parties and the French Republic to bear their

own costs.

Parties

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

Appellants: Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat)
(C-341/06 P), La Poste (represented by H. Lehman, avocat)
(C-342/06 P)