CELEX: C2000/259/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-254/00: Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

C 259/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
      Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 cannot be invoked in               Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of
      order to justify a compulsory, systematic scheme for the            the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      registration of licences issued by other Member States.                                         Netherlands
      The view taken by the Netherlands authorities is based
      on a misapprehension of the relationship between                                              (Case C-254/00)
      Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive and between
      the directive and Article 43 EC. In addition, the measures                                    (2000/C 259/09)
      applied by the Netherlands authorities are dispro-
      portionate.                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
—     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,                   Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the
      resulting from the reduction in the period of validity of a         Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
      driving licence issued by another Member State following            for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
      the date of issue in that Member State: the Netherlands             Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
      authorities apply the national rules concerning the val-
      idity of licences as from the time of becoming established          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      in the Netherlands. In that respect too, the Netherlands
      authorities have misapprehended the relationship                    1.    Declare that, by failing to notify all of the laws, regulations
      between Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive,                   and administrative provisions necessary for compliance
      in that, for a great many licence-holders, the mutual                     with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and
      recognition provided for by Article 1(2) is ineffective. The              of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of
      Netherlands authorities have misunderstood the notion                     standards for the transmission of television signals (1) or
      of ‘mutual recognition’: this does not mean that holders                  by failing to adopt the measures necessary for that
      of driving licences issued by the Netherlands and by other                purpose, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      Member States must be treated in the same way, but that                   fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      the legal effects attaching to driving licences issued by
                                                                          2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      another Member State are the same as in the issuing
      Member State. The aim is not to allow discrimination
      against holders of Netherlands driving licences by com-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      parison with holders of other driving licences, but to
      prevent a situation in which the latter group are faced             In view of the mandatory nature of the third paragraph of
      with obstacles to the exercise of freedom of establishment          Article 249 EC, Member States are required to adopt the
      in the Netherlands.                                                 measures necessary for compliance with directives which are
                                                                          addressed to them, and to do so before the expiry of the period
                                                                          specified therein. That period expired on 23 August 1996
—     Infringement of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 91/439: the            without the Netherlands having adopted the requisite pro-
      Netherlands statute prescribes a minimum age of 18 for              visions.
      drivers of category D vehicles, whereas, in accordance
      with Article 6(1)(c) of the directive, that age should be           (1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51.
      21.
—     Infringement of point 4 in Annex III to Directive 91/439:
      inasmuch as Article 100 of the (Netherlands) Reglement
      Rijbewijzen (Rules on Driving Licences) does not provide            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      for a periodic medical examination for Group 2 drivers              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      (lorry drivers and bus drivers), it is contrary to point 4 in       (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 June 2000, in
      Annex III to the directive.                                         the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                                     against the Zoological Society of London
                                                                                                    (Case C-267/00)
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 February 1996 in Case                                    (2000/C 259/10)
    C-193/94 Skanavi [1996] ECR I-929.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
                                                                          Office) of 21 June 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the Zoologi-
                                                                          cal Society of London, on the following questions: