Joint Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06) v Land Baden-Württemberg and Peter Funk (C-343/06) Stadt Chemnitz (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, administrative sanction, driving licence, fraud, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law, traffic regulations

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/5

Re:

and of

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and incorrect implementation of
Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European
Parliament
the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Obligation to have
an ad hoc agent resident in Luxembourg to keep all the docu-
ments necessary for the purposes of controls — Application of
national provisions on working and employment conditions
both going beyond and falling short of the requirements of the
directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht
Chemnitz
(Germany)) — Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06) v Land
Baden-Württemberg and Peter Funk (C-343/06) Stadt
Chemnitz

Verwaltungsgericht

Sigmaringen,

(Joint Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06) (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 209/07)

Language of the case: German

— by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of
Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of
workers in the framework of the provision of services and the
monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be manda-
tory provisions falling under national public policy;

— by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the
framework of the provision of services;

— by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December
2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information
necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national
authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for
undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz
(Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Arthur Wiedemann
(C-343/06)

(C-329/06),

Peter

Funk

— by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents neces-
sary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an
ad hoc agent resident there,

Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-329/06), Stadt Chem-
nitz (C-343/06)

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with
Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

Re:

2) Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Inte-
pretation of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4), and Annex III,
of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 91/439/EEC on
driving licences (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise
the validity of a driving licence fraudulently obtained in another
the subject of an
Member State by a holder who was

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