Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,mt&lng2=bg,cs,da,de,el,en,es,et,fi,fr,hu,it,lt,lv,mt,nl,pl,pt,ro,sk,sl,sv,&val=677592:cs&page=
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 21:56:37+00:00
Document Index: 47927

Matched Legal Cases: ['Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ']

In Case C‑419/10,
Fil-Kawża C‑419/10,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 16 August 2010, received at the Court on 23 August 2010, in the proceedings
li għadha bħala suġġett talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari skont l-Artikolu 267 TFUE, imressqa mill-Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (il-Ġermanja), permezz tad-deċiżjoni tas-16 ta’ Awwissu 2010, li waslet fil-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fit-23 ta’ Awwissu 2010, fil-proċedura
Wolfgang Hofmann Wolfgang Hofmann v
Freistaat Bayern, Freistaat Bayern, THE COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh and A. Arabadjiev, Judges,
komposta minn J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President tal-Awla, U. Lõhmus, A. Rosas (Relatur), A. Ó Caoimh u A. Arabadjiev, Imħallfin,
wara li rat il-proċedura bil-miktub u wara s-seduta tat-28 ta’ Settembru 2011,
– Mr Hofmann, by W. Säftel, Rechtsanwalt,
– għal W. Hofmann, minn W. Säftel, Rechtsanwalt,
– Freistaat Bayern, by M. Niese, Oberlandesanwalt,
– għall-Freistaat Bayern, minn M. Niese, Oberlandesanwalt fl-uffiċċju legali tal-Freistaat Bayern,
– għall-Gvern Ġermaniż, minn T. Henze u N. Graf Vitzthum, bħala aġenti,
– għall-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn G. Braun u N. Yerrell, bħala aġenti,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 November 2011
wara li semgħet il-konklużjonijiet tal-Avukat Ġenerali, ippreżentati fis-seduta tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2011,
1. The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18, and amendment OJ 2009 L 19, p. 67).
1. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tirrigwarda l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 2(1) u tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tal-20 ta’ Diċembru 2006, dwar il-Liċenzji tas-Sewqan (Tfassil mill-Ġdid) (ĠU L 403, p. 18)
2. The reference has been made in proceedings between Mr Hofmann, a German national residing in Viereth-Trunstadt (Germany) who holds a driving licence issued in the Czech Republic and the Freistaat Bayern (Free State of Bavaria) concerning a decision denying him the right to use his driving licence in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
2. Din it-talba tressqet fil-kuntest ta’ kawża bejn W. Hoffman, ċittadin Ġermaniż detentur ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa mir-Repubblika Ċeka u Freistaat Bayern, dwar deċiżjoni li tirrifjutalu d‑dritt li juża l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu fit-territorju tar-Repubblika Federali Ġermaniża.
Legal context Il-kuntest ġuridiku European Union legislation Il-leġiżlazzjoni tal-Unjoni 3. According to the second recital of Directive 2006/126:
3. Skont il-premessa 2 tad-Direttiva 2006/126:
‘The rules on driving licences are essential elements of the common transport policy, contribute to improving road safety, and facilitate the free movement of persons taking up residence in a Member State other than the one issuing the licence. Given the importance of individual means of transport, possession of a driving licence duly recognised by a host Member State promotes free movement and freedom of establishment of persons. ...’
“Ir-regoli dwar il-liċenzji tas-sewqan huma essenzjali fl-implementazzjoni tal-politika tat-trasport komuni, jikkontribwixxu għat-titjib tas-sigurtà fit-toroq, u jiffaċilitaw il-moviment liberu ta’ persuni li jkunu sejrin jagħmlu r-residenza tagħhom fi Stat Membru differenti minn dak fejn tkun inħarġet il-liċenzja. Fid-dawl ta’ l-importanza tat-trasport fuq il-bażi ta’ mezzi individwali, il-pussess ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan debitament rikonoxxuta mill-Istat Membru ospitanti tippromovi l-moviment liberu u l-libertà ta’ l-istabbiliment ta’ persuni. […].”
4. According to recital 8 of that directive, on road safety grounds, the minimum requirements for the issue of a driving licence should be laid down. 4. Skont il-premessa 8 ta’ din id-direttiva, għall-finijiet tas-sigurtà fit-toroq, għandhom jiġu stabbiliti r-rekwiżiti minimi għall-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan.
5. Recital 15 of the said directive states:
5. Il-premessa 15 tal-imsemmija direttiva tistabbilixxi:
‘For reasons connected with road safety, Member States should be able to apply their national provisions on the withdrawal, suspension, renewal and cancellation of driving licences to all licence holders having acquired normal residence in their territory.’ “Għall-finijiet tas-sigurtà fit-toroq, l-Istati Membri għandhom ikunu jistgħu japplikaw id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali tagħhom fir-rigward ta’ l-irtirar, tas-sospensjoni, tat-tiġdid tal-kanċellazzjoni ta’ liċenzji tas-sewqan lid-detenturi kollha ta’ liċenzja li jkunu kisbu r-residenza normali fit-territorju tagħhom”.
6. According to Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126, ‘[d]riving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised’.
6. Skont l-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, “[i]l-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa mill-Istati Membri għandhom jingħataw rikonoxximent reċiproku.”
7. Article 7(1) and (5) of that directive provides:
7. L-Artikolu 7(1) u (5) ta’ din id-direttiva jistabbilixxi:
“1. Il-liċenzji tas-sewqan għandhom jinħarġu biss lil dawk l-applikanti:
a) who have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and who meet medical standards, in accordance with the provisions of Annexes II and III;
a) li jkunu għaddew minn test ta’ ħila u ta’ komportament u minn test teoriku u li jissodisfaw l-istandards mediċi, skond il-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-Annessi II u III ;
e) who have their normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the licence, or can produce evidence that they have been studying there for at least six months.
e) li jkollhom ir-residenza normali tagħhom fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat Membru li joħroġ il-liċenzja, jew li jkunu jistgħu jipproduċu prova li kienu ilhom jistudjaw hemmhekk għal mill-inqas sitt xhur.
5. (a) No person may hold more than one driving licence.
5. (a) L-ebda persuna ma jista’ jkollha aktar minn liċenzja tas-sewqan waħda;.
(b) A Member State shall refuse to issue a licence where it establishes that the applicant already holds a driving licence.
b) Stat Membru għandu jirrifjuta li joħroġ liċenzja fejn jiġi stabbilit li l-applikant diġa għandu liċenzja tas-sewqan;
(c) Member States shall take the necessary measures pursuant to point (b). The necessary measures as regards the issue, replacement, renewal or exchange of a driving licence shall be to verify with other Member States where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant is already the holder of another driving licence.
(ċ) L-Istati Membri għandhom jieħdu l-miżuri meħtieġa skond il-punt (b). Il-miżuri meħtieġa fir-rigward tal-ħruġ, sostituzzjoni, tiġdid jew skambju ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan għandhom ikunu li jiġi verifikat ma’ Stati Membri oħra fejn ikun hemm motivi raġonevoli ta’ suspett li l-applikant ikun diġà detentur ta’ liċenzja oħra tas-sewqan;
(d) In order to facilitate the checks pursuant to point (b), Member States shall use the EU driving licence network once it is operational.
d) Sabiex jiġu faċilitati l-kontrolli skond il-punt (b), l-Istati Membri għandhom jużaw in-network tal-liċenzja tas-sewqan ta’ l-UE meta dan isir operattiv.
Without prejudice to Article 2, a Member State issuing a licence shall apply due diligence to ensure that a person fulfils the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article and shall apply its national provisions on the cancellation or withdrawal of the right to drive if it is established that a licence has been issued without the requirements having been met.’
Mingħajr preġudizzju għall-Artikolu 2, Stat Membru li joħroġ liċenzja għandu japplika d-diliġenza dovuta sabiex jiżgura li l-persuna tissodisfa r-rekwiżiti stabbiliti fil-paragrafu 1 ta’ dan l-Artikolu u għandu japplika d-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali tiegħu dwar il-kanċellament jew l-irtirar tad-dritt tas-sewqan jekk jiġi stabbilit li liċenzja ġiet maħruġa mingħajr ma ġew sodisfatti r-rekwiżiti”.
8. Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 reads:
8. L-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 huwa redatt kif ġej:
‘A Member State shall refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in another Member State.
“Stat Membru għandu jirrifjuta li joħroġ liċenzja tas-sewqan lil applikant li jkollu l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu ristretta, sospiża jew irtirata fi Stat Membru ieħor.
A Member State shall refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory.
Stat Membru għandu jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ kull liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor lil persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu ġiet ristretta, sospiża jew irtirata fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat preċedenti.
A Member State may also refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant whose licence is cancelled in another Member State.’
Stat Membru jista’ wkoll jirrifjuta li joħroġ liċenzja tas-sewqan lil applikant li li jkollu l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu kanċellata fi Stat Membru ieħor.”
9. Article 13 of that directive provides:
9. L-Artikolu 13 ta’ din id-direttiva jistabbilixxi:
‘1. With the agreement of the Commission, Member States shall establish equivalences between entitlements obtained before the implementation of this Directive and the categories defined in Article 4..
“1. Bil-kunsens tal-Kummissjoni, l-Istati Membri għandhom jistabbilixxu l-ekwivalenzi bejn id-drittijiet miksuba qabel l-implementazzjoni ta’ din id-Direttiva u l-kategoriji definiti fl-Artikolu 4.
Wara li jikkonsultaw il-Kummissjoni, l-Istati Membri jistgħu jagħmlu kull aġġustament fil-leġislazzjoni nazzjonali tagħhom li jkun meħtieġ bil-għan li jimplementaw id-dispożizzjoniiet ta’ l-Artikolu 11(4), (5) u (6).
2. Any entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013 shall not be removed or in any way qualified by the provisions of this Directive.’
2. Kull dritt ta’ sewqan mogħti qabel 19 ta’ Januar 2013 ma għandux jitneħħa jew bi kwalunkwe mod kwalifikat bid-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ din id-Direttiva.”
10. Article 15 of the said directive states:
10. L-Artikolu 15 tal-imsemmija direttiva jistabbilixxi:
‘Member States shall assist one another in the implementation of this Directive and shall exchange information on the licences they have issued, exchanged, replaced, renewed or revoked. They shall use the EU driving licence network set up for these purposes, once this network is operational.’
“L-Istati Membri għandhom jassistu lil xulxin fl-implementazzjoni ta’ din id-Direttiva u għandhom jiskambjaw tagħrif dwar il-liċenzji li jkunu ħarġu, skambjaw, issostitwixxu, ġeddu jew ikkanċellaw. Huma għandhom jużaw in-network ta’ liċenzji tas-sewqan ta’ l-UE stabbilit għal dawn il-finijiet, hekk kif dan in-network isir operattiv.”
11. Article 16(1) and (2) of the same directive provide:
11. L-Artikolu 16(1) u (2) tal-istess direttiva jipprovdi:
‘1. Member States shall adopt and publish, not later than 19 January 2011, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(1), Article 3, Article 4(1), (2), (3) and (4)(b) to (k), Article 6(1), (2)(a), (c), (d) and (e), Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), (2), (3) and (5), Article 8, Article 10, Article 13, Article 14, Article 15, and Annexes I, point 2, II, point 5.2 concerning categories A1, A2 and A, IV, V and VI. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.’ “1. L-Istati Membri għandhom jadottaw u jippubblikaw, mhux aktar tard minn 19 ta’ Januar 2011, il-liġijiet, ir-regolamenti u d-dispożizzjonijiet amministrattivi neċessarji sabiex jikkonformaw ma’ l-Artikolu 1(1), l-Artikolu 3, l-Artikolu 4(1), (2), (3) u (4)(b) sa (k), l-Artikolu 6(1), (2)(a), (ċ), (d) u (e), l-Artikolu 7(1)(b), (ċ) u (d), (2), (3) u (5), l-Artikolu 8, l-Artikolu 10, l-Artikolu 13, l-Artikolu 14, l-Artikolu 15, u l-Annessi I, punt 2, II, punt 5.2 dwar il-Kategoriji A1, A2 u A, IV, V u VI. Huma għandhom minnufih jikkomunikaw lill-Kummissjoni t-test ta’ dawk id-dispożizzjoniet.
2. Huma għadhom japplikaw dawk id-dispożizzjonijiet minn 19 ta’ Januar 2013.”
12. Article 17, first paragraph, of Directive 2006/126 provides:
12. L-ewwel paragrafu tal-Artikolu 17 tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jistabbilixxi:
‘[Council] Directive 91/439/EEC [of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1)] shall be repealed with effect from 19 January 2013, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States with regard to the deadlines indicated in Annex VII, Part B for transposing that Directive into national law.’
“Id-Direttiva 91/439/KEE [tal-Kunsill, tad-29 ta’ Lulju 1991, dwar il-liċenzji tas-sewqan ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 7, Vol. 1, p. 137] hija b’dan imħassra b’effett minn 19 ta’ Januar 2013, mingħajr preġudizzju għall-obbligi ta’ l-Istati Membri fir-rigward ta’ l-iskadenzi indikati fil-Parti B ta’ l-Anness VII għat-traspożizzjoni ta’ dik id-Direttiva fil-liġi nazzjonali.”
13. Article 18 of Directive 2006/126 reads:
13. L-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva 2006/126 huwa redatt b’dan il-mod:
‘This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .
“Din id-Direttiva għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fl-għoxrin jum wara dak tal-pubblikazzjoni tagħha fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea.
Article 2(1), Article 5, Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1)(a), Article 9, Article 11(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 12, and Annexes I, II and III shall apply from 19 January 2009.’
L-Artikolu 2(1), l-Artikolu 5, l-Artikolu 6(2)(b), l-Artikolu 7(1)(a), l-Artikolu 9, l-Artikolu 11(1), (3), (4), (5) u (6), l-Artikolu 12 u l-Annessi I, II u III għandhom japplikaw minn 19 ta’ Januar 2009.”
14. According to Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439, ‘[d]riving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised.’
14. Skont l-Artikolu 1(2) tad-Direttiva 91/439, “[i]l-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa mill-Istati Membri għandhom ikunu rrikonoxxuti reċiprokament”.
15. Article 7(1) of that directive provides:
15. L-Artikolu 7(1) ta’ din id-direttiva jistabbilixxi:
‘1. Driving licences shall, moreover, be issued only to those applicants:
“1. Il-liċenzji tas-sewqan għandhom, barra minn hekk, jinħarġu biss lil dawk l-applikanti :
a) li jkunu għaddew mit-test tal-ħiliet u l-imġiba u test tat-teorija u li jilħqu l-istandards mediċi, skond id-dispożizzjonijiet ta' l-Annessi II u III ;
(b) who have their normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the licence, or can produce evidence that they have been studying there for at least six months.’
b) li għandhom ir-residenza normali tagħhom fit-territorju ta' l-Istat Membru li joħroġ il-liċenzja, jew jistgħu jipproduċu xhieda illi kienu ilhom jistudjaw fih għal mill-inqas sitt xhur”.
16. Article 8(2) and (4) of the said directive provide:
16. L-Artikolu 8(2) u (4) tal-imsemmija direttiva jipprovdi:
‘2. Subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, the Member States of normal residence may apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, exchange the licence for that purpose. “2. Bla ħsara għat-tħaris tal-prinċipju tat-territorjalità tal-liġijiet kriminali u tal-pulizija, l-Istati Membri tar-residenza normali jistgħu japplikaw id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali tagħhom dwar ir-restrizzjoni, is-sospensjoni, l-irtirar jew it-tħassir tad-dritt tas-sewqan fuq il-possessur ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor u, jekk meħtieġ, jibdlu l-liċenzja b’dan il-għan.
4. A Member State may refuse to recognize the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person who is, in the former State’s territory, the subject of one of the measures referred to in paragraph 2. 4. Stat Membru jista’ jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ kull liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor lill-persuna li tkun, fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat ta’ qabel, bla ħsara għal waħda mill-miżuri riferiti fil-paragrafu 2.
A Member State may likewise refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant who is the subject of such a measure in another Member State.’
Stat Membru jista’ l-istess jirrifjuta li joħroġ liċenzja tas-sewqan lil applikant li jkun bla ħsara għal din il-miżura fi Stat Membru ieħor”.
National legislation Il-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali 17. Paragraph 28(1), first sentence, of the regulation on the authorisation of persons to drive on highways [Verordnung über die Zulassung von Personen zum Straßenverkehr (Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung)], of 18 August 1998 (BGBl. 1998 I, p. 2214), in the version resulting from the regulation of 7 January 2009 (BGBl. 2009 I, p. 29), provides:
17. L-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 28(1) tal-Liġi dwar l-aċċess tal-persuni għas-sewqan fit-toroq [Verordnung über die Zulassung von Personen zum Straßenverkehr (Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung)], tat-18 ta’ Awwissu 1998 (BGBl. 1998 I, p. 2214), fil-verżjoni tagħha li tirriżulta mil-liġi tas-7 ta’ Jannar 2009 (BGBl. 2009 I, p. 29), tistabbilixxi:
‘Holders of a valid [European Union] or European Economic Area (‘EEA’) driving licence having their normal residence, within the meaning of Paragraph 7(1) or (2), in Germany shall be authorised – subject to the restrictions laid down in subparagraphs (2) to (4) – to drive motor vehicles in Germany within the limits authorised by their driving licence ...’
“Id-detenturi ta’ liċenzja ta’ sewqan valida tal-[Unjoni Ewropea] jew taż-[Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (ŻEE)] li għandhom ir-residenza normali tagħhom fis-sens tal-Artikolu 7(1) jew (2) fil-Ġermanja huma awtorizzati – bla ħsara għar-restrizzjonijiet previsti fil-paragrafi 2 sa 4 – li jsuqu vetturi f’dan il-pajjiż sa fejn id-drittijiet tagħhom jippermettulhom. [...]”
18. Article 28(4) of the said regulation provides:
18. L-Artikolu 28(4) tal-imsemmi regolament jistabbilixxi:
‘The authorisation referred to in subparagraph 1 does not apply to holders of a [European Union] or EEA driving licence
“L-awtorizzazzjoni msemmija fil-paragrafu 1 ma tapplikax għad-detenturi ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan tal-[Unjoni] jew taż-ŻEE,
3. whose driving licence has, in Germany, been provisionally or definitively withdrawn by a court, or has been withdrawn by an immediately enforceable or definitive decision of an administrative authority, who have been definitively refused a driving licence, or whose driving licence has not been withdrawn solely because the licence has been surrendered in the meantime,
3. li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħhom kienet, fil-Ġermanja, is-suġġett ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar provviżorja jew definittiva meħuda minn qorti, jew ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar immedjatament eżekuttiva jew definittiva meħuda minn awtorità amministrattiva, jew li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħhom ġiet irrifjutata b’deċiżjoni li saret definittiva jew li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħhom ma ġietx irtirata biss minħabba l-fatt li fil-frattemp huma rrinunċjaw għaliha,
In the cases referred to in the first sentence, points 2 and 3, the competent authority may adopt a measure establishing that the person concerned has no right to drive. The first sentence, points 3 and 4, is applicable only where the measures to which it refers are entered in the central road traffic register and no striking off from the register has taken place pursuant to Paragraph 29 of the Law on Road Traffic (Straßenverkehrsgesetz).’
Fil-każijiet imsemmija fl-ewwel sentenza, punti 2 u 3, l-awtorità kompetenti tista’ tadotta att li jikkonstata n-nuqqas ta’ dritt. L-ewwel sentenza tal-punti 3 u 4 tapplika biss meta l-miżuri li hija tirrigwarda jitniżżlu fir-reġistru ċentrali tas-sewqan u meta ma jkun sar l-ebda tħassir abbażi tal-Artikolu 29 tal-liġi dwar is-sewqan fit-toroq (Straßenverkehrsgesetz).”
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling Il-kawża prinċipali u d-domanda preliminari 19. By a penal order of 8 May 2007, which became final, Mr Hofmann was fined by the Amtsgericht Memmingen (Local Court, Memmingen) for driving under the influence of alcohol. His driving licence was withdrawn, and he was prohibited from applying for a new licence for a period of 15 months, namely until 7 August 2008. In that respect, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that, before obtaining restitution of that driving licence at the expiry of the period of prohibition, Mr Hofmann had to apply for the issuing of a new licence to the competent German authority, which had to check whether it was necessary to make restitution of the licence subject to a new driving test, in order to establish his capacity to drive, or to a compulsory medico-psychological test, in order to establish his fitness to drive motor vehicles.
19. Permezz ta’ digriet kriminali tat-8 ta’ Mejju 2007, li sar definittiv, W. Hofmann ġie kkundannat mill-Amtsgericht Memmingen (Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Memmingen) għal multa minħabba sewqan fi stat ta’ sokor. Barra minn hekk, il-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu ġiet irtirata u fil-konfront tiegħu ttieħdet id-deċiżjoni li permezz tagħha huwa ġie pprojbit milli japplika għal liċenzja ġdida għal perijodu ta’ 15-il xahar, jiġifieri sas-7 ta’ Awwissu 2008. F’dan ir-rigward, mill-proċess mibgħut lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jirriżulta li, qabel ma jkun jista’ jikseb lura din il-liċenzja tas-sewqan wara dan il-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni, W. Hofmann kellu japplika għall-ħruġ ta’ permess ġdid mingħand l-awtorità Ġermaniża kompetenti, li kellha tiddeċiedi jekk kienx hemm lok li tissuġġetta l-għoti lura tal-liċenzja għal eżami ġdid tas-sewqan, sabiex tistabbilixxi l-kapaċità tas-sewqan tal-persuna kkonċernata, jew għal test mediku-psikoloġiku obbligatorju sabiex tivverifika l-kapaċità tiegħu li jsuq vetturi bil-mutur.
20. At a routine check on 17 March 2009, the German authorities found that Mr Hofmann was in possession of a Czech driving licence issued on 19 January 2009 and stating as the holder’s place of residence Lazany (Czech Republic). That driving licence was seized by the German police at another roadside check carried out on 25 March 2009. The said licence was sent to the German driving licence issuing authority.
20. Matul kontroll tat-traffiku mwettaq fis-17 ta’ Marzu 2009, l-awtoritajiet Ġermaniżi kkonstataw li W. Hofmann kien fil-pussess ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka maħruġa fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009 u li tirreferi għal Lazany (ir-Repubblika Ċeka) bħala l-post ta’ residenza tad-detentur tagħha. Din il-liċenzja ġiet sekwestrata mill-pulizija Ġermaniża matul kontroll ieħor tat-traffiku mwettaq fil-25 ta’ Marzu 2009. L-imsemmija liċenzja ntbagħtet lill-awtorità Ġermaniża kompetenti fil-qasam tal-ħruġ tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan.
21. By letter of 20 April 2009, that authority told Mr Hofmann that his Czech driving licence did not entitle him to drive motor vehicles in Germany. If he did not agree to that licence being endorsed to that effect, a declaratory administrative decision would be issued.
21. Permezz ta’ ittra tal-20 ta’ April 2009, din l-awtorità informat lil W. Hofmann li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka tiegħu ma tawtorizzahx isuq vetturi bil-mutur fil-Ġermanja. Fil-każ li huwa ma jaċċettax li jiġi annotat dan il-fatt fuq dan id-dokument, att dikjarattiv kien ser jiġi adottat.
22. Mr Hofmann having refused such an endorsement, the said authority determined, by a decision of 15 July 2009, that his Czech driving licence did not authorise him to drive motor vehicles in German territory and ordered that the licence be endorsed with a reference to its invalidity in the said territory.
22. Peress illi W. Hofmann irrifjuta din l-annotazzjoni, l-imsemmija awtorità kkonstatat, permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2009, li l-liċenzja ta s-sewqan Ċeka tiegħu ma tawtorizzahx isuq vettur bil-mutur fit-territorju Ġermaniż u ordnat li jiġi annotat fuq dan id-dokument il-fatt li l-imsemmija liċenzja ma hijiex valida fl-imsemmi territorju.
23. On 13 August 2009, Mr Hofmann brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg (Administrative Court, Augsburg) for the annulment of that decision.
23. Fit-13 ta’ Awwissu 2009, W. Hofmann adixxa lill-Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg (Qorti Amministrattiva ta’ Augsbourg) b’rikors intiż għall-annullament ta’ din id-deċiżjoni.
24. By judgment of 11 December 2009, that court dismissed the action. The principle of mutual recognition of driving licences did not prevent the determination that Mr Hoffman was not entitled to use his Czech driving licence in Germany, since Article 11(4), second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126 derogated from Article 2(1) of the said directive. That Article 11(4), second paragraph, did not have to be given a restrictive interpretation in accordance with the Court’s case‑law on Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, arising from the judgments of 26 June 2008 in Joined Cases C‑329/06 and C‑343/06 Wiedemann and Funk [2008] ECR p. I‑4635, and Joined Cases C‑334/06 to C‑336/06 Zerche [2008] ECR I‑4691). To allow exceptions of case-law origin would be contrary to the strict refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence henceforth imposed by Article 11(4), second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126 in the conditions defined in that article. The effectiveness of the fight against ‘driving licence tourism’, which constituted one of the objectives of the said directive, required the prevention of any circumventing of the comparatively strict conditions on fitness applicable in Germany after a withdrawal of the German driving licence.
24. Permezz ta’ sentenza tal-11 ta’ Diċembru 2009, din il-qorti ċaħdet dan ir-rikors. Il-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan ma huwiex ta’ ostaklu għall-fatt li jiġi kkonstatat in-nuqqas ta’ dritt ta’ W. Hoffman li juża, fil-Ġermanja, il-liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka tiegħu, sa fejn it-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jidderoga mill-Artikolu 2(1) tal-imsemmija direttiva. Skont il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar l-Artikolu 8(2) u (4) tad-Direttiva 91/439, li tirriżulta mis-sentenzi tas-26 ta’ Ġunju 2008 Wiedemann u Funk (C‑329/06 u C‑343/06, Ġabra p. I‑4635), u Zerche et (C‑334/06 sa C‑336/06, Ġabra p. I‑4691), dan it-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 ma għandux ikun is-suġġett ta’ interpretazzjoni restrittiva. Il-fatt li jiġu aċċettati eċċezzjonijiet ta’ oriġini ġurisprudenzjali jmur kontra r-rifjut strett ta’ rikonoxximent tal-validità ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan li issa huwa impost mit-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 skont il-kundizzjonijiet previsti f’dan l-artikolu. Issa, l-effikaċità tal-ġlieda kontra t-“turiżmu tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan”, li tikkostitwixxi waħda mill-għanijiet tal-imsemmija direttiva, timponi l-ħtieġa li jiġi pprojbit kull evitar tad-dispożizzjonijiet dwar il-kapaċità, komparitivament stretti, li japplikaw fil-Ġermanja wara li tiġi rtirata liċenzja tas-sewqan Ġermaniża.
25. By an appeal authorised by the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Bavaria), Mr Hofmann sought, in essence, annulment of the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht and of the decision of the driving licence issuing authority of 15 July 2009, claiming that, as the first issue, the question arose whether Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 applied to foreign driving licences issued, as in this case, on 19 January 2009, or on a later date. Only as the second issue did the question arise whether the case-law of the Court of Justice mentioned in the previous paragraph of this judgment was applicable to the provisions of that directive which entered into force on 19 January 2009.
25. Permezz ta’ appell awtorizzat mill-Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Qorti Amministrattiva Superjuri ta’ Bayern), W. Hofmann essenzjalment talab l-annullament tas-sentenza tal-Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg u tad-deċiżjoni tal-awtorità kompetenti fil-qasam tal-ħruġ tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2009, billi sostna li, fl-ewwel stadju, tqum il-kwistjoni dwar jekk l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 kienx japplika għal liċenzji tas-sewqan barranin maħruġa, bħal f’din il-kawża, fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009, jew f’data sussegwenti. Huwa biss fit-tieni stadju li tqum il-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja msemmija fil-punt preċedenti ta’ din is-sentenza kinitx applikabbli għad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ din id-direttiva li daħlet fis-seħħ fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009.
26. Being in doubt as to whether the case-law of the Court of Justice on Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 should be applied to Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
26. Peress li kellha dubji fuq il-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar l-Artikoli 1(2) u 8(2) u (4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 tistax tiġi applikata għall-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, il-Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċedura u li tressaq lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari segwenti:
‘Are Article 2(1) and Article 11(4), second sentence, of Directive 2006/126 … to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must refuse to recognise in its territory the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person outside a period during which that person was prohibited from applying for a new licence, in the case where that person’s driving licence had been withdrawn in the national territory of the first Member State and that person’s normal place of residence at the time of the issue of the driving licence was in the national territory of the issuing Member State?’
“L-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 […] għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li Stat Membru għandu jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor lil persuna wara l-iskadenza tal-perijodu ta’ sospensjoni applikabbli għaliha meta l-liċenzja ta’ din il-persuna kienet ġiet irtirata fit-territorju tal-ewwel Stat Membru u meta din il-persuna, fiż-żmien tal-ħruġ tal-liċenzja, kellha r-residenza normali tagħha fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li ħareġ il-liċenzja?”
Procedure before the Court Il-proċedura quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 27. By a letter which reached the Court of Justice on 13 September 2011, the referring court informed the Court of Justice that M. Hofmann had been subject to a measure withdrawing his driving licence by a judgment of 5 April 2011 of the Amtsgericht Memmingen, which had become final, and that restitution of the said licence had been excluded for a period of one year and six months. According to the said court, although there was therefore no further need to rule on the finding in the decision of the driving licence issuing authority of 15 July 2009 that Mr Hofmann’s Czech driving licence did not authorise him to drive motor vehicles in German territory, it remained necessary for the Court of Justice to rule on the question referred for a preliminary ruling. 27. B’ittra li waslet fil-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fit-13 ta’ Settembru 2011, il-qorti tar-rinviju informat lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja li W. Hoffman kien is-suġġett ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan permezz ta’ sentenza tal-5 ta’ April 2011 tal-Amtsgericht Memmingen, li saret definittiva, u li l-għoti lura tal-imsemmija liċenzja kien ġie eskluż għal perijodu ta’ sena u sitt xhur. Għalhekk, għalkemm skont l-imsemmija qorti ma għadx hemm lok li tittieħed deċiżjoni fuq il-konstatazzjoni li tinsab fid-deċiżjoni tal-awtorità kompetenti fil-qasam tal-ħruġ tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2009, li tipprovdi li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka ta’ W. Hoffman ma kinitx tawtorizzah isuq vetturi bil-mutur fit-territorju Ġermaniż, xorta għad hemm il-ħtieġa li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tiddeċiedi fuq id-domanda preliminari.
28. Firstly, Mr Hofmann’s guardian ad litem was henceforth claiming, in reaction to the conviction of his client, that the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg should be set aside and that the said decision of 15 July 2009 should be held unlawful. For the referring court to be able to rule as to whether the said decision was unlawful, it was necessary for the Court of Justice to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling. Moreover, the proceedings brought by Mr Hofmann are only one of many sets of proceedings the outcome of which depends on the reply of the Court of Justice to that question.
28. Fil-fatt, minn naħa, il-mandatarju ad litem ta’ W. Hoffman issa qed jitlob, b’reazzjoni għall-kundanna kriminali tal-klijent tiegħu, li s-sentenza tal-Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg tiġi rriformata u li din id-deċiżjoni tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2009 tiġi kkonstatata bħala illegali. Sabiex il-qorti tar-rinviju tkun tista’ tiddeċiedi fuq il-kwistjoni dwar jekk l-imsemmija deċiżjoni kinitx illegali, hemm bżonn li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja twieġeb id-domanda preliminari. Min-naħa l-oħra, il-proċedura mibdija minn W. Hoffman hija biss waħda mid-diversi proċeduri li r-riżultat tagħha tiddependi mit-tweġiba tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja għal din id-domanda.
The question referred for a preliminary ruling Fuq id-domanda preliminari 29. By its question, the national court asks, in essence, whether, on a proper interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126, a Member State is required, outside any period of prohibition from applying for a new driving licence imposed upon the holder of a licence issued by another Member State and even where the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to refuse to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the holder of the said licence has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing an earlier driving licence.
29. Permezz tal-ewwel domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju essenzjalment tistaqsi jekk l-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 għandhomx jiġu interpretati fis-sens li Stat Membru għandu, lil hinn minn kull perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni milli japplika għal liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida imposta fuq id-detentur tal-liċenzja maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor u meta saħansitra l-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju ta’ dan tal-aħħar ġiet osservata, jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ din il-liċenzja tas-sewqan, meta d-detentur tal-imsemmija liċenzja kien is-suġġett, fit-territorju tal-ewwel Stat Membru, ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar tal-liċenzja tas-sewqan preċedenti.
Preliminary observations Osservazzjonijiet preliminari 30. As a preliminary, it needs to be determined whether Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126 are applicable to the facts in the main proceedings.
30. Preliminarjament, għandu jiġi ddeterminat jekk l-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 humiex applikabbli għall-fatti inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali.
31. M. Hofmann argues that the effect of Article 16(2) and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/126, according to which no right to drive issued before 19 January 2013 is withdrawn or accompanied by any restrictions under the terms of the provisions of that directive, that the date of entry into force of Article 11(4), second paragraph of the latter has been determined as 19 January 2013.
31. W. Hoffman iqis li peress illi mill-Artikolu 16(2) u mill-Artikolu 13(2) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jirriżulta li ebda dritt ta’ sewqan mogħti qabel id-19 ta’ Januar 2013 ma għandu jitneħħa jew jiġi bi kwalunkwe mod ikkwalifikat bid-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ din id-direttiva, id-data tad-dħul fis-seħħ tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tagħha kienet iffissata għad-19 ta’ Jannar 2013.
32. By contrast, the European Commission and the German Government take the view that Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126 are applicable to the facts at issue in the main proceedings. The Commission emphasises in particular that that directive entered into force on 19 January 2007 and that the decisive factor, in the present case, is the issuing of a Czech driving licence on 19 January 2009. The German Government argues that Article 13(2) of the said directive does not preclude the application of Article 11(4), second paragraph, of the same directive to driving licences issued before 19 January 2013. That is apparent in particular from the fact that that latter provision is, in accordance with Article 18, second paragraph, of Directive 2006/126, applicable as from 19 January 2009. By contrast, Article 13 of that directive does not apply, according to Article 16(1) and (2) of the latter, until after 19 January 2013. Nor had the Federal Republic of Germany transposed Article 13(2) of the said directive in advance. 32. Min-naħa l-oħra, il-Kummissjoni Ewropea u l-Gvern Ġermaniż huma tal-fehma li l-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 japplikaw għall-fatti inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali. Il-Kummissjoni ssostni b’mod partikolari li din id-direttiva daħlet fis-seħħ fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2007 u li l-element determinanti, fil-kuntest ta’ din il-kawża, huwa l-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009. Min-naħa tiegħu, il-Gvern Ġermaniż isostni li l-Artikolu 13(2) tal-imsemmija direttiva ma jipprekludix l-applikazzjoni tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din l-istess direttiva fir-rigward tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa qabel id-19 ta’ Jannar 2013. Dan jirriżulta b’mod partikolari mill-fatt li din l-aħħar dispożizzjoni tapplika, skont it-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva 2006/126, mid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009. Min-naħa l-oħra, skont l-Artikolu 16(1) u (2) ta’ din id-direttiva, l-Artikolu 13 tal-imsemmija direttiva japplika biss mid-19 ta’ Jannar 2013. Ir-Repubblika Federali Ġermaniża lanqas ma ttrasponiet b’mod antiċipat l-Artikolu 13(2) tal-imsemmija direttiva.
33. In that regard, it should be noted that, whilst Directive 91/439 will be repealed only with effect from 19 January 2013, Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 are applicable as from 19 January 2009, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18 of that directive (Case C‑467/10 Akyüz [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 31).
33. F’dan ir-rigward, għandu jiġi kkonstatat li għalkemm id-Direttiva 91/439 mhux ser tiġi mħassra qabel id-19 ta’ Jannar 2013, l‑Artikolu 2(1) u l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 japplikaw mid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009, skont it-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 18 tagħha (ara s-sentenza tal-1 ta’ Marzu 2012, Akyüz, C‑467/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 31).
34. In this case, it is apparent from the order for reference that Mr Hofmann’s Czech driving licence, obtained on 19 January 2009, was seized by the German police on 25 March 2009 and that Mr Hofmann was informed by the German driving licence issuing authority, by letter of 20 April 2009, that the said licence did not authorise him to drive motor vehicles in Germany. That authority then ordered, by a decision of 15 July 2009, that that document be endorsed with a statement that it was invalid in German territory.
34. Issa, mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan Ċeka ta’ W. Hoffman, miksuba fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009, ġiet issekwestrata mill-pulizija Ġermaniża fil-25 ta’ Marzu 2009 u li huwa ġie informat mill-awtoritajiet Ġermaniżi kompetenti fil-qasam tal-ħruġ tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan, b’ittra tal-20 ta’ April 2009, li l-imsemmija liċenzja ma tawtorizzahx isuq vetturi bil-mutur fil-Ġermanja. Sussegwentement, l-imsemmija awtorità ordnat, b’deċiżjoni tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2009, li dan d-dokument jiġi annotat b’referenza li ssemmi n-nuqqas ta’ validità tiegħu fit-territorju Ġermaniż.
35. It follows that Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 apply ratione temporis to the facts at issue in the main proceedings.
35. Minn dan jirriżulta li l-Artikolu 2(1) u l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 japplikaw ratione temporis għall-fatti inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali.
36. Mr Hofmann’s argument, in essence, that Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/126 precludes the application of Article 11(4), second paragraph, of the said directive does nothing to invalidate that conclusion.
36. L-argument ta’ W. Hofmann li essenzjalment jipprovdi li l-Artikolu 13(2) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jimpedixxi l-applikazzjoni tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tal-imsemmija direttiva 2006/126 ma tinvalidax din il-konklużjoni.
37. Except for the provisions referred to in Article 18, second paragraph of Directive 2006/126 and of which Article 11(4) forms part, the other provisions of that directive, and in particular Article 13, are applicable, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 17 of the directive, only as from 19 January 2013.
37. Fil-fatt, minbarra d-dispożizzjonijiet imsemmija fit-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva 2006/126 u li l-Artikolu 11(4) tagħha jifforma parti minnu, id-dispożizzjonijiet l-oħra ta’ din id-direttiva, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 13 tagħha, japplikaw, skont l-ewwel paragrafu tal-Artikolu 17 tal-imsemmija direttiva, biss mid-19 ta’ Jannar 2013.
38. Moreover, as the German Government argues, if Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/126 had to be interpreted as meaning that, generally, a driving licence issued before 19 January 2013 could be neither withdrawn nor be made subject to restrictions, it would no longer be possible to apply Article 11(4) of that directive, for which the second paragraph of Article 18 however makes express provision for application as from 19 January 2009. 38. Barra minn hekk, kif isostni l-Gvern Ġermaniż, li kieku l-Artikolu 13(2) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens, b’mod ġenerali, li liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa qabel id-19 ta’ Jannar 2013 la tista’ tiġi rtirata u lanqas suġġetta għal restrizzjoni, l-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din id-direttiva ma jkunx jista’ jiġi applikat għaliex għal dan l-aħħar artikolu t-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 18 tagħha espressament jipprovdi, madankollu, applikazzjoni li tibda tiddekorri mid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009.
39. In any event, as the German Government has also observed, the place of Article 13 in the body of Directive 2006/126 demonstrates that the said Article 13(2) refers not to measures restricting, suspending or withdrawing a driving licence but only to acquired rights for the driving of vehicles in particular categories. 39. Fi kwalunkwe każ, kif josserva wkoll il-Gvern Ġermaniż, il-pożizzjoni tal-Artikolu 13 fil-qafas tad-Direttiva 2006/126/KE turi li l-paragrafu 2 ta’ dan l-Artikolu 13 ma jirreferix għal miżuri ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan iżda biss għal drittijiet miksuba għas-sewqan ta’ vetturi ta’ kategoriji partikolari.
40. As the Advocate General has pointed out in point 35 of his Opinion, Directive 2006/126 establishes a single model Community driving licence designed to replace the various driving licences in existence in the Member States. Article 4 of that directive prescribes and defines the various categories of driving licence with which the Member States, each of which have defined their own categories of driving licence, must establish equivalences.
40. Kif l-Avukat Ġenerali rrileva fil-punt 35 tal-konklużjonijiet tiegħu, id-Direttiva 2006/126 tistabbilixxi mudell uniku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan Komunitarju intiż li jissostitwixxi l-liċenzji tas-sewqan differenti li jeżistu fl-Istati Membri. L-Artikolu 4 tal-imsemmija direttiva jistabbilixxi u jiddefinixxi l-kategoriji differenti ta’ liċenzji tas-sewqan li fir-rigward tagħhom l-Istati Membri, li kull wieħed minnhom iddefinixxa l-kategoriji proprja tiegħu ta’ liċenzji tas-sewqan, għandhom jistabbilixxu l-ekwivalenti.
41. Thus, Article 13 of Directive 2006/126, headed ‘Equivalences between non-Community model licences’, is designed solely to govern the question of equivalences between rights acquired before the implementation of that directive and the various categories of driving licence defined by the latter.
41. Għalhekk, l-Artikolu 13 tad-Direttiva 2006/126/KE, bit-titolu “Ekwivalenzi bejn mudelli ta’ liċenzja mhux Komunitarji”, huwa intiż biss li jirregola l-kwistjoni tal-ekwivalenzi bejn id-drittijiet miksuba qabel l-implementazzjoni ta’ din id-direttiva u l-kategoriji differenti ta’ liċenzji tas-sewqan iddefiniti minnha.
42. That analysis is confirmed by examining the travaux préparatoires of Directive 2006/126, from which it is apparent, as the Advocate General has pointed out in point 37 of his Opinion, that Article 13(2) of that directive was added at the initiative of the European Parliament, which justified the addition stating that the replacement of old driving licences was not, under any circumstances, to result in the loss or restriction of acquired rights with regard to the authorisation to drive different categories of vehicle.
42. Din l-analiżi hija kkonfermata mill-eżami tax-xogħlijiet preparatorji tad-Direttiva 2006/126/KE li minnhom jirriżulta, kif l-Avukat Ġenerali rrileva fil-punt 37 tal-konklużjonijiet tiegħu, li l-Artikolu 13(2) ta’ din id-direttiva ġie miżjud fuq l-inizjattiva tal-Parlament Ewropew li ġġustifika din iż-żieda billi ppreċiża illi l-bidla tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan antiki ma għandha fl-ebda każ tirriżulta f’telf jew f’restrizzjoni tad-drittijiet miksuba f’dak li jikkonċerna l-awtorizzazzjoni għas-sewqan ta’ diversi kategoriji ta’ vetturi.
Reply of the Court of Justice Ir-risposta tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 43. It must be noted that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439 provides for the mutual recognition, without any formality, of driving licences issued by Member States. That provision imposes on those Member States a clear and precise obligation which leaves no room for discretion as to the measures to be adopted in order to comply with it (see, inter alia, Case C‑321/07 Schwarz [2009] ECR I‑1113, paragraph 75, Case C‑184/10 Grasser [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 19, and Akyüz , paragraph 40).
43. Għandu jitfakkar li, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita, l-Artikolu 1(2) tad-Direttiva 91/439 jipprevedi r-rikonoxximent reċiproku, mingħajr ebda formalità, tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa mill-Istati Membri. Din id-dispożizzjoni timponi fuq dawn tal-aħħar obbligu ċar u preċiż, li ma jħalli ebda marġni ta’ diskrezzjoni fir-rigward tal-miżuri li għandhom jiġu adottati sabiex huma jkunu konformi miegħu (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi tad-19 ta’ Frar 2009, Schwarz, C‑321/07, Ġabra. p. I‑1113, punt 75, tad-19 ta’ Mejju 2011, Grasser, C‑184/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 19 u Akyüz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 40).
44. As the Court has already held in paragraph 40 of its judgment in Akyüz , the same is true as regards Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126, which has identical wording to that of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439.
44. Kif il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja diġà ddeċidiet fil-punt 40 tas-sentenza Akyüz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, dan japplika wkoll f’dak li jirrigwarda l-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, li huwa redatt b’mod identiku għall-Artikolu 1(2) tad-Direttiva 91/439.
45. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that it is for the issuing Member State to investigate whether the minimum conditions imposed by European Union law, particularly those relating to residence and fitness to drive laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 91/439, have been satisfied and, therefore, whether the issuing of a driving licence is justified (see Schwarz , paragraph 76, and Grasser , paragraph 20).
45. Barra minn hekk, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja b’mod ripetut qieset li huwa l-kompitu tal-Istat Membru li joħroġ il-liċenzja tas-sewqan li jivverifika jekk il-kundizzjonijiet minimi imposti mid-dritt tal-Unjoni, b’mod partikolari dawk dwar ir-residenza u l-kapaċità għas-sewqan, previsti fl-Artikolu 7(1) tad‑Direttiva 91/439, humiex sodisfatti u, għalhekk, jekk il-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas‑sewqan ikunx iġġustifikat (ara s-sentenzi ċċitati iktar ’il fuq, Schwarz, punt 76, kif ukoll Grasser, punt 20).
46. Once the authorities of one Member State have issued a driving licence in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 91/439, the other Member States are not entitled to investigate whether the conditions for issue laid down by that directive have been met. The possession of a driving licence issued by one Member State has to be regarded as constituting proof that on the day on which that licence was issued, its holder satisfied those conditions (see, inter alia, Schwarz , paragraph 77, and Grasser , paragraph 21).
46. Meta l-awtoritajiet ta’ Stat Membru jkunu ħarġu liċenzja tas-sewqan skont l‑Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva 91/439, l-Istati Membri l-oħra ma jistgħux jivverifikaw jekk il-kundizzjonijiet għall-ħruġ previsti minn din id-direttiva ġewx osservati. Fil-fatt, il-pussess ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru għandu jiġi kkunsidrat bħala li jikkostitwixxi l-prova li d-detentur ta’ din il‑liċenzja kien jissodisfa, fil-jum meta nħarġitlu, l-imsemmija kundizzjonijiet (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi ċċitati iktar ’il fuq Schwarz, punt 77, u Grasser, punt 21).
47. Those considerations are fully transposable to the system established by Directive 2006/126, in which the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences issued in the Member States has been reaffirmed, as is apparent from paragraph 44 of this judgment, in terms identical to those appearing in Directive 91/439.
47. Dawn il-kunsiderazzjonijiet japplikaw b’mod sħiħ għas-sistema implementata bid-Direttiva 2006/126, li fiha l-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa mill-Istati Membri reġa’ ġie sostnut, kif jirriżulta mill-punt 44 ta’ din is-sentenza, bi kliem identiku għal dak li jinsab fid-Direttiva 91/439.
48. Concerning Directive 91/439, the Court has however held, first, that Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of that directive do not preclude a host Member State from refusing to recognise within its territory a driving licence issued in another Member State where it is established, on the basis not of information coming from the host Member State, but of entries appearing on the driving licence itself or of other indisputable information from the issuing Member State, that the normal residence condition laid down by Article 7(1)(b) has not been satisfied (see, to that effect, Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 72, and Grasser , paragraph 33). It should also be noted that the fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439 to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard ( Grasser , paragraph 33). 48. Fir-rigward tad-Direttiva 91/439, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja madankollu tqis, minn naħa, li l‑Artikolu 1(2), l‑Artikolu 7(1)(b), kif ukoll l-Artikolu 8(2) u (4) tagħha ma jipprekludux Stat Membru ospitanti milli jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi fit-territorju tiegħu l-liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor, meta jiġi stabbilit, mhux fuq il-bażi ta’ informazzjoni li toriġina mill-Istat Membru ospitanti, iżda fuq il-bażi tal-informazzjoni li jkun hemm fuq il-liċenzja tas-sewqan stess jew ta’ informazzjoni inkontestabbli oħra li toriġina mill-Istat Membru li joħroġ il-liċenzja, li l-kundizzjoni tar-residenza normali prevista fl-imsemmi Artikolu 7(1)(b) ma kinitx ġiet osservata (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi ċċitati iktar ’il fuq Wiedemann u Funk, punt 72, u Grasser, punt 33). Għandu jiġi wkoll irrilevat li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddeċidiet li l-fatt li d-detentur tal-imsemmija liċenzja ma kienx suġġett, min-naħa tal-Istat Membru ospitanti, għal ebda miżura fis-sens tal-Artikolu 8(2) tal-imsemmija direttiva huwa irrilevanti f’dan ir-rigward (ara s-sentenza Grasser, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 33).
49. Moreover, the Court has held that when the person concerned has been subject to a measure withdrawing his driving licence and prohibiting any application for a new licence for a given period, it is not contrary to Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Directive 91/439 for a Member State to refuse to recognise a new licence issued by another Member State during the period of that prohibition ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 65; Schwarz , paragraph 83; Order of 3 July 2008 in Case C‑225/07 Möginger , paragraph 38). 49. Min-naħa l-oħra, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddeċidiet li l-Artikoli 1(2) u 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 ma jipprekludux lil Stat Membru milli jirrifjuta, fir-rigward ta’ persuna li tkun ġiet suġġetta, fit-territorju tiegħu, għal miżura ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja flimkien ma’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni għal liċenzja ġdida għal perijodu determinat, li jirrikonoxxi liċenzja ġdida maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor matul dan il-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni (ara s-sentenzi ċċitati iktar ’il fuq Wiedemann u Funk, punt 65; kif ukoll Schwarz, punt 83, u d-Digriet Möginger, iċċitat iktar ’il fuq, punt 38).
50. The Court has held in that respect that Article 8(4) may, however, not be used by a Member State as a basis for refusing indefinitely to recognise, in relation to a person who has been subject in its territory to a measure withdrawing or cancelling a previous licence issued by that State, the validity of any licence that may subsequently, that is to say, after the period of prohibition, be issued to him by another Member State (see, to that effect, Case C‑476/01 Kapper [2004] ECR I‑5205, paragraph 76; Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 63; Schwarz , paragraph 85; and Order of 6 April 2006 in Case C‑227/05 Halbritter , paragraph 28). 50. F’dan ir-rigward, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja kkunsidrat li l-imsemmi Artikolu 8(4) ma jistax, minn naħa l-oħra, jiġi invokat minn Stat Membru sabiex jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi b’mod indefinit, fir-rigward ta’ persuna li fit-territorju tiegħu tkun ġiet suġġetta għal miżura ta’ rtirar jew tħassir ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn dan l-Istat Membru, il-validità ta’ kull liċenzja li tista’ tinħarġilha iktar tard, jiġifieri wara l-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni, minn Stat Membru ieħor (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi tad-29 ta’ April 2004 Kapper, C‑476/01, Ġabra p. I‑5205, punt 76; Wiedemann u Funk, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 63, kif ukoll Schwarz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 85, u d-Digriet tas-6 ta’ April 2006, Halbritter, punt 28).
51. Thus, where a person’s driving licence has been withdrawn in a Member State, Article 8(4) does not, in principle, authorise that Member State to refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence subsequently issued to the same person by another Member State outside a period during which no application may be made by him for the issue of a new driving licence (see, to that effect, Kapper , paragraph 76; Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 64; Schwarz , paragraph 86, and orders in Halbritter , paragraph 27, and Möginger , paragraph 44). 51. Għalhekk, meta persuna tkun ġiet suġġetta, fi Stat Membru, għal miżura ta’ rtirar tal-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha, l-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439, bħala regola ġenerali, ma jippermettix lil dan l-Istat Membru li jirrifjuta milli jirrikonoxxi l-validità tal-liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa wara minn Stat Membru ieħor lill-istess persuna fi żmien li jkun barra minn kull perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni għal liċenzja ġdida tas-sewqan (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi ċċitati iktar ’il fuq Kapper, punt 76; Wiedemann u Funk, punt 64, kif ukoll id-digrieti ċċitati iktar ’il fuq Halbritter, punt 27 u Möginger, punt 44).
52. Having regard to the difference in wording between Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 and the corresponding provision of Directive 2006/126, namely Article 11(4), it needs to be determined whether those two provisions must henceforth be interpreted in a different way, so that the conditions highlighted by the Court’s case-law referred to in paragraphs 48 to 51 of this judgment for the application of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 are no longer applicable to a situation such as that of Mr Hofmann, which is governed by Directive 2006/126. 52. Fid-dawl tad-differenza ta’ abbozzar li hemm bejn l-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 u d-dispożizzjoni korrispondenti tagħha tad-Direttiva 2006/126, jiġifieri l-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din tal-aħħar, hemm bżonn li jiġi ddeterminat jekk dawn iż-żewġ dispożizzjonijiet għandhomx issa jiġu interpretati b’mod differenti, b’mod li l-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti, imfakkra fil-punti 48 sa 51 ta’ din is-sentenza, mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja għall-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 jistgħux jiġu applikati għal sitwazzjoni bħal dik ta’ W. Hoffman, li hija rregolata bid-Direttiva 2006/126.
53. Whilst Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 provides that a Member State may refuse to recognise, in favour of a person subject in its territory to restriction, suspension, withdrawal or annulment of the right to drive, the validity of any licence issued by another Member State, Article 11(4), second paragraph of Directive 2006/126 provides that ‘[a] Member State shall refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory’. Thus, the wording of that latter provision henceforth requires Member States to refuse to recognise such a driving licence, whereas Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 left them a discretion in that regard.
53. Fil-fatt, għalkemm l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 jipprovdi li Stat Membru jista’ jirrifjuta milli jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ kull liċenzja stabbilita minn Stat Membru ieħor lil persuna li kienet fit-territorju tiegħu s-suġġett ta’ restrizzjoni, sospensjoni jew irtirar tad-dritt tagħha għal sewqan, it-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jistabbilixxi, min-naħa tiegħu li “Stat Membru għandu jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ kull liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor lil persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu ġiet ristretta, sospiża jew irtirata fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat preċedent”. Għalhekk, filwaqt li kliem din l-aħħar dispożizzjoni timponi fuq l-Istati Membri minn issa ’l quddiem il-ħtieġa li jirrifjutaw ir-rikonoxximent ta’ tali liċenzja tas-sewqan, l-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 kien jagħtihom f’dan ir-rigward setgħa diskrezzjonali.
54. On that point, Mr Hofmann considers that it can be easily deduced from the identity of the terms used that Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 contains the same exceptions to the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences as those which already existed in application of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. If the formulation of the principle of mutual recognition appearing in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439 and in Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 has remained unchanged, there is no reason to require the case-law concerning that principle to evolve. The fact of limiting the discretion of the Member States to refuse to recognise a licence issued by another Member State is irrelevant to the conditions for applying Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126.
54. Fuq dan il-punt, W. Hoffman iqis li huwa possibbli li wieħed faċilment jiddeduċi mill-kliem użat li l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jinkludi l-istess eċċezzjonijiet għall-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan bħal dawk li kienu diġà jeżistu skont l-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439, kif interpretati mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja. Peress illi l-formulazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzja għas-sewqan li jinsab fl-Artikolu 1(2) tad-Direttiva 91/439 u fl-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 baqa’ l-istess, ma hemm l-ebda raġuni għalfejn il-ġurisprudenza dwar dan il-prinċipju għandha tiġi żviluppata. Il-fatt li s-setgħa diskrezzjonali tal-Istati Membru biex jirrifjutaw li jirrikonoxxu liċenzja maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor ġiet limitata ma għandux effett fuq il-kundizzjonijiet ta’ applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126.
55. Similarly, the Commission considers that, whilst the new provisions no longer leave a full discretion to the Member States on refusing to recognise a driving licence, but require them to refuse where the conditions for such a refusal are met, the conditions under which recognition of a licence could be refused pursuant to the old provisions or must be refused henceforth have not changed. In the Commission’s view, it cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 that the relevant judgments of the Court of Justice concerning the conditions which prevailed under Directive 91/439 have lost their relevance. Whilst the travaux préparatoires of Directive 2006/126 place emphasis on the newly created obligation not to issue and not to recognise a driving licence, there has been no reference to a change in the conditions underlying a measure of non‑issuance or non-recognition of a licence.
55. Bl-istess mod, il-Kummissjoni tqis li, għalkemm id-dispożizzjonijiet il-ġodda ma għadhomx jagħtu libertà sħiħa lill-Istati Membri biex jirrifjutaw ir-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan, iżda jimponu fuqhom il-ħtieġa li jopponu rifjut meta l-kundizzjonijiet ta’ tali rifjut ma jkunux ġew sodisfatti, il-kundizzjonijiet li permezz tagħhom ir-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja seta’ jiġi rrifjutat skont id-dispożizzjonijiet l-antiki jew issa għandha tiġi rrifjutata ma nbidlux. Skont din l-istituzzjoni, ma jistax jiġi dedott minn kliem l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 in-nuqqas ta’ applikabbiltà tas-sentenzi rilevanti tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar il-kundizzjonijiet li kienu japplikaw taħt id-Direttiva 91/439. Għalkemm ix-xogħlijiet preparatorji kollha tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jenfasizzaw l-obbligu ġdid maħluq li jistabbilixxi li ma għandhiex tinħareġ u ma għandhiex tiġi rrikonoxxuta liċenzja tas-sewqan, ma hemm imkien imsemmi li ser ikun hemm bidla fil-kundizzjonijiet li fuqhom hija bbażata miżura ta’ nuqqas ta’ ħruġ jew ta’ nuqqas ta’ rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja.
56. If it were otherwise, a citizen of the Union would no longer be able to obtain a driving licence other than in the Member State in which that licence was previously subject to restriction, suspension or withdrawal, and that would apply without limitation of time on that restriction. 56. Li kieku kien mod ieħor, ċittadin tal-Unjoni jista’ biss jikseb liċenzja fl-Istat Membru li fih din il-liċenzja qabel kienet is-suġġett ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar, u dan mingħajr limitu ratione temporis ta’ din ir-restrizzjoni.
57. The Freistaat Bayern argues, by contrast, that the said conditions have been identified by the case-law of the Court of Justice rendered on the basis of Directive 91/439, and that that case-law now applies to driving licences issued before 19 January 2009.
57. Min-naħa l-oħra, il-Freistaat Bayern issostni li l-imsemmija kundizzjonijiet ġew stabbiliti mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja mogħtija fuq il-bażi tad-Direttiva 91/439 u li din il-ġurisprudenza għadha tgħodd biss għal-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa qabel id-19 ta’ Jannar 2009.
58. Moreover, unlike Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439, the first paragraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 henceforth requires a Member State, without leaving it any discretion, to refuse to issue a new driving licence to a person who has been subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal measure in another Member State.
58. Barra minn hekk, b’mod differenti mill-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439, l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 issa jimponi, mingħajr ma tħallilhom ebda setgħa diskrezzjonali, il-ħtieġa li jiġi rrifjutat il-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida lill-persuna kkonċernata li kienet is-suġġett, fi Stat Membru ieħor, ta’ miżura ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar.
59. The Freistaat Bayern concludes therefrom that the case-law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 cannot be transposed to Article 11(4), first and second subparagraphs, of Directive 2006/126. In its view, under that latter directive, if a Member State refuses to recognise a driving licence issued to a person by a Member State where the latter has been subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal measure in its territory, the said State refuses to recognise an act contrary to EU law. Indeed, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, that other Member State was not authorised to carry out such issuance. Article 11(4) of that directive thus constituted a lex specialis in relation to Article 2(1) of the said directive and required Member States to refuse to recognise driving licences which were not issued in conformity with EU law.
59. Il-Freistaat Bayern tiddeduċi minn dan li l-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 ma tistax tiġi trasposta għall-ewwel u għat-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126. Fil-fehma tagħha, abbażi ta’ din l-aħħar direttiva, jekk Stat Membru jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa lil persuna kkonċernata minn Stat Membru ieħor meta din kienet is-suġġett ta’ miżura ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fit-territorju tiegħu, l-imsemmi Stat għandu jirrifjuta li jirrikonoxxi att li jmur kontra d-dritt tal-Unjoni. Fil-fatt, skont l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, dan l-Istat Membru l-ieħor ma kienx awtorizzat li jipproċedi b’tali ħruġ. L-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din id-direttiva jikkostitwixxi għalhekk lex specialis meta mqabbel mal-Artikolu 2(1) tal-imsemmija direttiva u jimponi fuq l-Istati Membri l-ħtieġa li jirrifjutaw milli jirrikonoxxu l-liċenzji tas-sewqan li ma nħarġux skont id-dritt tal-Unjoni.
60. In the view of the Freistaat Bayern, the travaux préparatoires of Directive 2006/126 confirm that analysis. The wording of Article 11(4), first and second subparagraphs, of the latter follows from an amendment proposed by the Transport and Tourism commission of the European Parliament, which was clearly aimed at reacting to the Kapper judgment and at providing a legislative response to it. 60. Ix-xogħlijiet preparatorji tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jikkonfermaw din l-analiżi. Kliem l-ewwel u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tagħha jirriżulta minn emenda proposta mill-Kummissjoni tat-Trasport u tat-Turiżmu tal-Parlament Ewropew, li l-għan ewlieni tagħha kien li jirreaġixxi għas-sentenza Kapper, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, u li tipprovdi tweġibha b’mezzi leġiżlattivi.
61. The German Government argues that, in accordance with its wording, Article 11(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126 does not concern either a possible infringement of the condition of normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the driving licence or the expiry of a possible period of proh ibition from obtaining a new licence. Although the present tense is used in both the French-language version of that provision (‘à une personne dont le permis de conduire fait l’objet, sur son territoire, d’une restriction, d’une suspension ou d’un retrait’) and in the English-language version (‘to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory’), the wording of the latter allows perfectly for it to be applied to a person whose driving licence has been withdrawn under German law and in relation to whom the period of temporary prohibition from obtaining a new licence has expired. In cases where the German driving licence has not yet been restored to the said person, the latter continues to be ‘the subject of a withdrawal’. 61. Min-naħa tiegħu, il-Gvern Ġermaniż jenfasizza li, skont kliemu, it-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 ma jirrigwarda la ksur eventwali tal-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru li joħroġ liċenzja tas-sewqan u lanqas l-iskadenza ta’ perijodu eventwali ta’ projbizzjoni għall-kisba ta’ liċenzja ġdida. Għalkemm il-verżjonijiet bil-Franċiż (“à une personne dont le permis de conduire fait l’objet, sur son territoire, d’une restriction, d’une suspension ou d’un retrait”) u bl-Ingliż ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni (“to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory”) jużaw il-preżent, kliemha perfettament jippermetti li tintuża għal persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha tkun ġiet irtirata abbażi tad-dritt Ġermaniż u li fil-konfront tagħha l-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni temporanja għall-kisba ta’ liċenzja ġdida jkun wasal biex jiskadi. Fil-każ li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan Ġermaniża ma tkunx għadha ngħatat lura lill-imsemmija persuna, din tal-aħħar tibqa’ “s-suġġett ta’ rtirar”.
62. The addition of conditions for application not expressly provided for in Article 11(4), second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126 cannot be justified, in the German Government’s submission, by a ‘strict interpretation’ of that provision. A provision should not be the subject of such an interpretation by reason of the mere fact that it constitutes an exception, in this instance, to the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences laid down by Article 2(1) of the said directive. 62. Skont il-Gvern Ġermaniż, iż-żieda ta’ kundizzjonijiet ta’ applikazzjoni li ma ġewx espressament stabbiliti mit-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 ma tistax tiġi ġġustifikata permezz ta’ “interpretazzjoni ristretta” ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni. Dispożizzjoni ma għandhiex tkun is-suġġett ta’ tali interpretazzjoni minħabba s-sempliċi fatt li hija tikkostitwixxi eċċezzjoni, f’din il-kawża, għall-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan stabbilit fl-Artikolu 2(1) tal-imsemmija direttiva.
63. The German Government adds that the obligation on a Member State to refuse to recognise the validity of driving licences in the cases envisaged by Article 11(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126 enables road safety to be assured, thereby protecting the right to life, the right to the integrity of the person and the right to property, laid down respectively by Articles 2, 3 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which have the same legal value as the fundamental freedoms to which the principle of mutual recognition referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 contributes.
63. Il-Gvern Ġermaniż iżied jgħid illi l-obbligu impost fuq Stat Membru biex jirrifjuta milli jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan fil-każijiet previsti fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jippermetti li tiġi żgurata s-sigurtà fit-toroq u li għalhekk jitħarsu d-dritt għall-ħajja, id-dritt għall-integrità tal-persuna u d-dritt ta’ proprjetà, stabbiliti rispettivament fl-Artikoli 2, 3 u 17 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, li għandhom l-istess valur legali bħal-libertajiet fundamentali li għalihom jikkontribwixxi l-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku msemmi fl-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Direttiva 2006/126.
64. The German Government also considers that the origins of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of that directive show that its authors wished to restore priority to efforts to intensify the fight against ‘driving licence tourism’ and thus reinforce road safety, in relation to the principle of mutual recognition, underpinned by the concept of freedom of movement, which had hitherto prevailed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. There was, by contrast, nowhere any sign of a hypothetical desire by the entities which participated in the adoption of that directive to make application of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of the latter depend on an infringement of the condition of normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the driving licence or the non-expiry of the period of prohibition from obtaining a new licence. 64. L-imsemmi Gvern iqis ukoll li l-oriġini tat-tieni paragrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din d-direttiva turi li l-awturi tiegħu xtaqu jerġgħu jqiegħdu bħala prijorità l-isforzi intiżi biex tiġi intensifikata l-ġlieda kontra t-“turiżmu tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan” u, għalhekk, biex tiġi msaħħa s-sigurtà fit-toroq, meta mqabbla mal-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku, imfassal fuq il-kunċett ta’ moviment liberu, li sa dak iż-żmien kien jipprevali fil-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja. Min-naħa l-oħra, ir-rieda ipotetika tal-partijiet involuti fl-adozzjoni tal-imsemmija direttiva biex l-applikazzjoni tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tagħha tkun tiddependi fuq ksur tal-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li joħroġ il-liċenzja tas-sewqan jew fuq in-nuqqas ta’ skadenza tal-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni għall-kisba ta’ liċenzja ġdida ma tirriżulta minn imkien.
65. In that regard, it should nevertheless be noted that the difference in wording between Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 and Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 is not of such a kind as to call into question the conditions, as identified by the case-law of the Court of Justice, in which recognition of a driving licence could be refused by virtue of the provisions of Directive 91/439, and must henceforth be refused by virtue of the provisions of Directive 2006/126.
65. Madankollu, f’dan ir-rigward, għandu jiġi kkunsidrat li d-differenza fil-kliem li hemm bejn l-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 u l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 ma hijiex ta’ natura li tqiegħed inkwistjoni l-kundizzjonijiet, kif stabbiliti mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, li permezz tagħhom ir-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan seta’ jiġi rrifjutat abbażi tad-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva 91/439, u issa għandu jkun abbażi tad-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva 2006/126.
66. Indeed, apart from the transformation into an obligation of what was previously merely an option of non-recognition, and the establishment of a distinction between restriction, suspension and withdrawal, on the one hand, and annulment on the other, the wording of Article 11(4), second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126 has not undergone substantial modification from that of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439. 66. Fil-fatt, minbarra l-bidla f’obbligu ta’ dak li qabel kien jikkostitwixxi s-sempliċi possibbiltà ta’ nuqqas ta’ rikonoxximent, u l-iffissar ta’ distinzjoni bejn restrizzjoni, sospensjoni u rtirar, minn naħa, u kanċellament, min-naħa l-oħra, il-kliem tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 ma ġarrabx bdil sostanjzali meta mqabbel ma’ kliem l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439.
67. Whilst it is true that some language versions of Article 11(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126, and particularly the German version (‘einer Person ..., deren Führerschein ... eingeschränkt, ausgesetzt oder entzogen worden ist’ ), are formulated in such a way as not to exclude the possibility that the measures mentioned in that provision might have exhausted their effects, the fact remains that a large number of other language versions of Article 11(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126, such as the French and the English (‘à une personne dont le permis de conduire fait l’objet, sur son territoire, d’une restriction, d’une suspension ou d’un retrait’ and ‘to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory’) express the idea that the said measures must be current for a Member State to be obliged to refuse recognition of a driving licence issued to a person whose licence has been subject, in its territory, to one of those measures.
67. Għalkemm huwa minnu li ċerti verżjonijiet lingwistiċi tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, u b’mod partikolari l-verżjoni bil-lingwa Ġermaniża tagħha (“einer Person [...], deren Führerschein [...] eingeschränkt, ausgesetzt oder entzogen worden ist ”), huma redatti b’mod li ma jeskludux li l-miżuri msemmija f’din id-dispożizzjoni jkunu eżawrew l-effetti tagħhom, xorta jibqa’ l-fatt li għadd kbir ta’ verżjonijiet lingwistiċi oħra tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 bħalma huma dawk bil-lingwa Franċiża u bil-lingwa Ingliża (“à une personne dont le permis de conduire fait l’objet, sur son territoire, d’une restriction, d’une suspension ou d’un retrait” u “to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory”) jesprimu l-idea li sabiex Stat Membru jkun obbligat li jirrifjuta r-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzjat tas-sewqan, l-imsemmija miżuri għandhom ikunu fis-seħħ meta din il-liċenzja tinħareġ lil perusna li l-liċenzja tagħha jkun is-suġġett, fit-territorju tal-imsemmi Stat Membru, ta’ wieħed minn dawn il-miżuri.
68. According to settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of an EU provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. (see, in particular, Case C‑187/07 Endendijk [2008] ECR I‑2115, paragraph 23; Case C‑239/07 Sabatauskas and Others [2008] ECR I‑7523, paragraph 38; Joined Cases C‑230/09 and C‑231/09 Kurt and Thomas Etling and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 60). Moreover, the various language versions of a text of EU law must be given a uniform interpretation and hence, in the case of divergence between the language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part (see, to that effect, Endendijk , at paragraph 24; Case C‑340/08 M and Others [2010] ECR I‑3913, paragraph 44; Kurt and Thomas Etling , paragraph 60).
68. Issa, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita, minn naħa, il-kliem użat f’waħda mill-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi ta’ dispożizzjoni legali tal-Unjoni ma jistax iservi bħala bażi unika għall-interpretazzjoni ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni jew jingħata, f’dan ir-rigward, natura prioritarja fil-konfront tal-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi l-oħra (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi tat-3 ta’ April 2008, Endendijk, C‑187/07, Ġabra p. I‑2115, punt 23, tad-9 ta’ Ottubru 2008, Sabatauskas et , C‑239/07, Ġabra p. I‑7523, punt 38, u tal-5 ta’ Mejju 2011, Kurt und Thomas Etling et , C‑230/09 u C‑231/09, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 60). Min-naħa l-oħra, il-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi differenti ta’ test tad-dritt tal-Unjoni għandhom jiġu interpretati b’mod uniformi u, għalhekk, f’każ ta’ diverġenzi bejn dawn il-verżjonijiet, id-dispożizzjoni inkwistjoni għandha tiġi interpretata abbażi tal-istruttura ġenerali u tal-għan tal-leġiżlazzjoni li minnha tifforma parti (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi Endendijk, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 24, tad-29 ta’ April 2010, M et , C‑340/08, Ġabra p. I‑3913, punt 44 u Kurt und Thomas Etling et iċċitata iktar ’il fuq punt 60).
69. In any event, it should be noted that the German-language version of Article 8(4), first subparagraph, of Directive 91/439 uses the past tense (‘einer Person ..., auf die ... eine der in Absatz 2 genannten Maßnahmen angewendet wurde’ ), without that fact preventing the Court of Justice from taking the view that a Member State cannot rely on that provision to refuse indefinitely to recognise, in favour of a person who has been subject in its territory to such a measure, the validity of any licence which might subsequently be issued to him by another Member State.
69. Fi kwalunkwe każ, għandu jiġi kkonstatat li l-verżjoni tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 fil-lingwa Ġermaniża juża l-passat (“einer Person [...], auf die [...] eine der in Absatz 2 genannten Maßnahmen angewendet wurde ”), u dan il-fatt ma waqqafx lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja milli tqis li Stat Membru ma jistax jinvoka din id-dispożizzjoni biex jirrifjuta li indefinittivament jirrikonoxxi, lil persuna li kienet is-suġġett fit-territorju tiegħu ta’ miżura rtirar, il-validità ta’ kull liċenzja li wara tista’ tingħatalha minn Stat Membru ieħor.
70. Whilst the travaux préparatoires of Directive 2006/126 do show that the EU legislature wanted to reinforce the fight against ‘driving licence tourism’ by transforming an option not to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State into an obligation, in order to ensure mutual recognition of restriction, suspension or withdrawal measures, those travaux préparatoires do not show that the conditions in which a Member State is authorised or, in relation to that directive, is required, not to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State, as identified by the case-law of the Court of Justice, have been called into question. 70. Għalkemm mix-xogħlijiet preparatorji tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jirriżulta b’mod ċert li l-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni xtaq isaħħaħ il-ġlieda kontra t-“turiżmu tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan” billi biddel il-possibbiltà ta’ nuqqas ta’ rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor f’obbligu, sabiex jiggarantixxi r-rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-miżuri ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar, minn dawn ix-xogħlijiet preparatorji, min-naħa l-oħra, ma jirriżultax li l-kundizzjonijiet li fihom Stat Membru huwa awtorizzat jew, fir-rigward ta’ din id-direttiva, għandu l-obbligu li ma jirrikonoxxix liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor, kif stabbilit mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, ġew imqiegħda inkwistjoni.
71. Moreover, the Court of Justice has repeatedly stated that the option provided for by Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 constitutes a derogation from the general principle of mutual recognition of driving licences, and must therefore be interpreted strictly (see, in particular, Case C‑1/07 Weber [2008] ECR I‑8571, paragraph 29; Schwarz , paragraph 84; Order in Case C‑334/09 Scheffler [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 63). That finding remains valid in relation to the obligation now appearing in the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126. Indeed, that obligation also constitutes a derogation from the general principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences, reaffirmed in Article 2(1) of the said directive.
71. Barra minn hekk, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ripetittivament fakkret li l-possibbiltà prevista fl-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 tikkostitwixxi deroga għall-prinċipju ġenerali ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan u għalhekk għandha tiġi interpretata b’mod strett (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi tal-20 ta’ Novembru 2008, Weber, C‑1/07, Ġabra p. I‑8571, punt 29; Schwarz, punt 84, u d-Digriet tat-2 ta’ Diċembru 2010, Scheffler, C‑334/09, li għadu ma ġiex ippubblikat fil-Ġabra, punt 63). Issa, dan il-fatt japplika fir-rigward tal-obbligu li issa jinsab fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126. Fil-fatt, dan l-obbligu jikkostitwixxi huwa stess deroga għall-prinċipju ġenerali ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan li huwa sostnut mill-ġdid fl-Artikolu 2(1) tal-imsemmija direttiva.
72. It should be added that the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 distinguish the hypotheses of issuing and recognition of a driving licence to a person whose driving licence is subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal in another Member State. Apart from that distinction, those first and second subparagraphs are similarly worded. Therefore, if the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision lays down an obligation on a Member State not to recognise any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal measure in the first Member State, a similar interpretation must be adopted as regards the first subparagraph of Article 11(4) of that directive, which also lays down an obligation not to issue a driving licence to such a person. 72. Għandu jingħad ukoll li l-ewwel u t-tieni subparagrafi tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 joħolqu distinzjoni bejn l-ipoteżi tal-ħruġ u l-ipoteżi tar-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan lil persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha tkun is-suġġett ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru ieħor. Minbarra din id-distinzjoni, l-ewwel subparagrafu u t-tieni subparagrafu huma redatti b’mod li jixxiebah. Għalhekk, jekk it-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li din id-dispożizzjoni tistabbilixxi obbligu għal Stat Membru biex ma jirrikonoxxix kwalunkwe liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor lil persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha tkun is-suġġett ta’ miżura ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fl-ewwel Stat Membru, l-istess interpretazzjoni għandha tapplika fir-rigward tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din id-direttiva, li għalhekk tistabbilixxi obbligu biex ma tinħariġx liċenzja tas-sewqan lil tali persuna.
73. It is apparent, in that regard, from the travaux préparatoires of Directive 2006/126 that the intention of the EU legislature consisted in reinforcing the principle of the uniform nature of driving licences and preventing a person whose driving licence has been subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal measure in a Member State from being able to have a driving licence issued to him in another Member State or able to have the validity of such a licence recognised (see, to that effect, the proposal for an EC directive of the European Parliament and the Council on driving licences (recast), of 21 October 2003, COM(2003) 621 final, presented by the Commission, p. 6). 73. F’dan ir-rigward, mix-xogħlijiet preparatorji tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jirriżulta li r-rieda tal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni kienet tikkonsisti fit-tisħiħ tal-prinċipju ta’ uniċità tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan u fl-evitar tal-fatt li persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha hija s-suġġett ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru tkun tista’ tingħata liċenzja tas-sewqan minn Stat Membru ieħor jew li tiġi rrikonoxxut lilha l-validità ta’ tali liċenzja [ara, f’dan is-sens, il-proposta tad-Direttiva KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u l-Kunsill dwar il-liċenzji tas-sewqan (tfassil mill-ġdid), tal-21 ta’ Ottubru 2003, COM(2003) 621 finali, ippreżentata mill-Kummissjoni, p. 6].
74. It does not, however, follow that a person whose driving licence has been subject to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal measure in a Member State can never again obtain a new driving licence in another Member State, even after the expiry of the period of temporary prohibition from obtaining a new driving licence which may have accompanied such a measure in the first Member State.
74. Madankollu, minn dan ma jirriżultax li persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha kienet is-suġġett ta’ miżura ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru ma tista’ qatt iktar tikseb liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida minn Stat Membru ieħor, anki, jekk ikun il-każ, wara l-iskadenza tal-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni temporanja għall-kisba ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida stabbilita mill-ewwel Stat Membru.
75. The interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 argued for by the Freistaat Bayern and the German Government would amount to imposing, by virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, a permanent prohibition, not limited in time, on the issuing of a new driving licence by a Member State to a person whose driving licence has been subject, in the past, to a restriction, suspension or withdrawal in another Member State.
75. Issa, l-interpretazzjoni tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 tal-Freistaat Bayern u tal-Gvern Ġermaniż twassal biex timponi, abbażi tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, projbizzjoni permanenti, li ma hijiex suġġetta għal restrizzjoni ratione temporis , fil-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida minn Stat Membru lil persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha kienet is-suġġett, fil-passat, ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru ieħor.
76. In that context, it should be remembered that, by virtue of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 and Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2006/126, a driving licence may be issued only by the Member State in the territory of which the applicant has his normal residence. Thus, the only possibility, for a person whose driving licence has been subject to withdrawal in a Member State and who has subsequently transferred his residence to another Member State, of obtaining a new driving licence in conformity with Directives 91/439 and 2006/126 would be to apply to the competent authorities of the new Member State of residence. 76. F’dan il-kuntest, għandu jitfakkar li, abbażi tal-Artikolu 7(1)(a) tad-Direttiva 91/439 u l-Artikolu 7(1)(b) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, liċenzja tas-sewqan tista’ tinħareġ biss mill-Istat Membru li fit-territorju tiegħu l-applikant għandu r-residenza normali tiegħu. Għalhekk, l-unika possibbiltà għal persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha kienet is-suġġett ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru u li sussegwentement ittrasferit ir-residenza tagħha fi Stat Membru ieħor, li tikseb liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida skont id-Direttivi 91/439 u 2006/126, huwa li tindirizza ruħha lill-awtoritajiet kompetenti tal-Istat Membru l-ġdida ta’ residenza.
77. To interpret Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 as meaning that such a person can no longer obtain a driving licence in the new Member State of residence, even after the expiry of any period of prohibition from applying for a new licence, would therefore amount to a hindrance to the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States, conferred on citizens of the Union by Article 21 TFEU and of which Directive 2006/126 is designed to facilitate the exercise.
77. Li l-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jiġi interpretat fis-sens li tali persuna ma tista’ qatt iktar tikseb liċenzja tas-sewqan f’Stat Membru ġdid ta’ residenza, anki wara li jkun skada l-perijodu eventwali ta’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni ta’ liċenzja ġdida, iwassal għalhekk biex jiġi ostakolat id-dritt ta’ moviment liberu u ta’ residenza fit-territorju tal-Istati Membri, mogħti liċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni bl-Artikolu 21 TFUE u li d-Direttiva 2006/126 huwa intiż li jiffaċilita l-użu tiegħu.
78. Moreover, as the Court of Justice has held as regards Directive 91/439, acknowledgment that a Member State is entitled to rely on its national provisions in order to refuse indefinitely to recognise a licence issued in another Member State would be fundamentally incompatible with the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences which is the linchpin of the system established by Directive 2006/126 (see, to that effect, Kapper , paragraph 77, and order in Halbritter , paragraph 28).
78. Barra minn hekk, kif il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddeċidiet f’dak li jirrigwarda d-Direttiva 91/439, li jiġi aċċettat li Stat Membru huwa intitolat li jibbaża ruħu fuq id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali tiegħu biex jopponi indefinittivament ir-rikonoxximent tal-validità ta’ liċenzja maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor huwa n-negazzjoni stess tal-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal‑liċenzji tas-sewqan, li huwa l-bażi fundamentali tas-sistema stabbilita mid‑Direttiva 91/439 (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza Kapper, C‑476/01, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 77, kif ukoll id-digriet Halbritter, C‑340/05, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 28).
79. It must, however, be stated that, in the course of the hearing, the Freistaat Bayern and the German Government argued, in essence, that, for a person whose driving licence has been withdrawn in a Member State to be able to obtain a new driving licence in another Member State in conformity with Directive 2006/126 and obtain recognition of that new driving licence by the other Member States, it is necessary for the Member State of issuance to cooperate with the Member State which made the withdrawal. According to that government, the Member State of issuance should be informed by that other Member State of the reasons which led to that withdrawal and should verify whether the latter have disappeared.
79. Madankollu, għandu jiġi ppreċiżat li matul is-seduta għas-sottomissjonijiet orali, il-Freistaat Bayern u l-Gvern Ġermaniż essenzjalment sostnew li sabiex persuna li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan tagħha kienet is-suġġett ta’ rtirar fi Stat Membru tkun tista’ tikseb liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida fi Stat Membru ieħor skont id-Direttiva 2006/126 u tkun tista’ jkollha din il-liċenzja ġdida rrikonoxxuta fi Stati Membri oħra, huwa meħtieġ li l-Istat Membru tal-għoti jikkoopera mal-Istat Membru li jkun ipproċeda bl-imsemmi rtirar. Skont dan il-Gvern, l-Istat Membru tal-għoti għandu jkun informat mill-Istat Membru l-ieħor bir-raġunijiet li wasslu għal dan l-irtirar u għandu jivverifika jekk dawn ġewx eliminati.
80. That argument cannot be accepted, however.
80. Madankollu, dan l-argument ma jistax jiġi milqugħ.
81. It is true that the obligation now appearing in Article 11(4), first subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126 implies cooperation between the Member States with a view to verifying, first, whether the applicant for a driving licence is already the holder of a licence issued in another Member State, where, as envisaged by Article 7(5)(c) of that directive, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting it, and, second, whether that applicant is subject, in the event of withdrawal of his driving licence in another Member State, to a period of prohibition from applying for a new licence. Article 15 of the said directive reaffirms, moreover, the need for mutual assistance and an exchange of information between Member States. 81. Ċertament, l-obbligu li issa jinsab fl-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jimplika kooperazzjoni bejn l-Istati Membri sabiex jiġi vverifikat, minn naħa, jekk l-applikant ta’ liċenzja għas-sewqan huwiex diġà detentur ta’ liċenzja maħruġa fi Stat Membru ieħor, meta, kif jipprovdi l-Artikolu 7(5)(ċ) ta’ din id-direttiva, ikun hemm raġunijiet raġonevoli biex dan jiġi ssuspettat, u, min-naħa l-oħra, jekk l-imsemmi applikant huwiex suġġett, fil-każ ta’ rtirar tal-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu fi Stat Membru ieħor, għal perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni li japplika għal liċenzja ġdida. Barra minn hekk, l-Artikolu 15 tal-imsemmija direttiva jerġa’ jsostni l-ħtieġa ta’ assistenza reċiproka u ta’ skambju ta’ informazzjoni bejn l-Istati Membri.
82. However, to impose, as a condition for the issuance of a licence by the Member State of residence of the applicant, an absolute obligation for the competent authorities to consult each other and to verify systematically that the reasons which led to the previous withdrawal of a driving licence have disappeared, would require the creation of a complex system for determining whether the applicant for a driving licence has not, even a long time previously, been subject to withdrawal of a driving licence in any Member State. In any event, such a system is not expressly provided for by Directive 2006/126. Even if the driving licence network of the European Union is of such a nature as to facilitate the establishment of such a system, that network is, however, not yet operational and cannot constitute a useful instrument in that regard concerning possible withdrawal measures which may have been adopted in other Member States in a distant past.
82. Madankollu, li jiġi impost, bħala kundizzjoni għall-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja mill-Istat Membru ta’ residenza tal-applikant, obbligu assolut fuq l-awtoritajiet kompetenti biex jikkonsultaw ma’ xulxin u biex jivverifikaw sistematikament jekk ir-raġunijiet li wasslu għall-irtirar preċedenti ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġewx eliminati, iwassal għall-ħtieġa li tinħoloq sistema kumplessa li tippermetti li jiġi ddeterminat jekk l-applikant ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan kienx is-suġġett, saħansitra ħafna żmien qabel, ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan fi Stat Membru ieħor. Fi kwalunkwe każ, tali sistema ma hijiex espressament prevista mid-Direttiva 2006/126. Għalkemm in-netwerk tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan tal-Unjoni Ewropea huwa ta’ natura li jiffaċilita l-implementazzjoni ta’ tali sistema, dan in-netwerk madankollu ma huwiex operazzjonabbli u ma jistax jikkostitwixxi strument utli f’dan ir-rigward f’dak li jikkonċerna l-eventwali miżuri ta’ rtirar li kienu ġew adottati fi Stati Membri oħra fil-passat imbiegħed.
83. Moreover, the person who makes an application for a driving licence in a Member State may have been subject in the past, in another Member State, to withdrawal of a driving licence for various reasons, in particular for those at issue in the main proceedings, but also for other infringements of the highway code, even minor ones. Verification of the disappearance of some of those reasons for withdrawal could prove difficult, Directive 2006/126, moreover, providing no indication in that respect.
83. Barra minn hekk, il-persuna li tippreżenta applikazzjoni għal liċenzja tas-sewqan fi Stat Membru setgħet kienet fil-passat is-suġġett, fi Stat Membru ieħor, ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan għal diversi raġunijiet, b’mod partikolari għal dawk inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, iżda wkoll għal ksur ieħor saħansitra żgħir tal-Kodiċi tat-Toroq. Issa, peress illi d-Direttiva 2006/126 ma tipprovdi, barra minn hekk, ebda indikazzjoni f’dan ir-rigward, il-verifika tal-eliminazzjoni ta’ ċerti minn dawn ir-raġunijiet għall-irtirar diffiċilment tista’ titwettaq.
84. In that context, it should also be remembered that the Court of Justice has held, concerning Directive 91/439, that a host Member State making the issue of a driving licence subject to stricter domestic conditions, especially after an earlier licence has been withdrawn, may not refuse to recognise a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State solely on the ground that the holder of that new licence has obtained it pursuant to national legislation that does not impose the same requirements as that host Member State ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 54). That interpretation is equally valid in relation to Directive 2006/126 which, like Directive 91/439, provides for a minimum degree of harmonisation of the national provisions relating to the conditions under which a driving licence may be issued (see, to that effect, Akyüz , paragraph 53) and the linchpin of which remains, as stated in paragraph 78 of this judgment, the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by the Member States.
84. F’dan il-kuntest, għandu jitfakkar ukoll li fir-rigward tad-Direttiva 91/439 il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddeċidiet li Stat Membru ospitanti, li jissuġġetta l-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan għal kundizzjonijiet nazzjonali iktar iebsa, b’mod partikolari wara l-irtirar ta’ liċenzja preċedenti, ma jistax jirrifjuta r-rikonoxximent ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa iktar tard minn Stat Membru ieħor għas-sempliċi raġuni li d-detentur ta’ din il-liċenzja ġdida jkun kisibha skont leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li ma timponix l-istess rekwiżiti bħal dan l-Istat Membru ospitanti (ara s-sentenza Wiedemann u Funk, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 54). Din l-interpretazzjoni tapplika wkoll fir-rigward tad-Direttiva 2006/126, li bħad-Direttiva 91/439 tistabbilixxi armonizzazzjoni minima tad-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali dwar il‑kundizzjonijiet li taħthom liċenzja tas-sewqan tista’ tinħareġ (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza Akyüz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 53) u li l-bażi fundamentali tagħha, kif ġie rrilevat fil-punt 78 ta’ din is-sentenza, huwa l-prinċipju ta’ rikonoxximent reċiproku tal-liċenzji tas-sewqan maħruġa mill-Istati Membri.
85. Moreover, the conclusion that the conditions identified by the Court of Justice, referred to in paragraphs 48 to 51 of this judgment, for applying the first subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 remain applicable as regards the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 is confirmed by the special regime reserved, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, for the annulment of a driving licence.
85. Barra minn hekk, il-konklużjoni li tipprovdi li l-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, imfakkra fil-punti 48 sa 51 ta’ din is-sentenza, għall-applikazzjoni tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439 japplikaw fir-rigward tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 hija kkonfermata mis-sistema partikolari li tintuża, skont it-tielet subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126, għall-annullament ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan.
86. Indeed, that latter provision provides, like the second subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439, that a Member State may refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant whose licence has been subject to annulment in another Member State. Thus, a Member State is not required to make such a refusal. 86. Fil-fatt, din l-aħħar dispożizzjoni, tistabbilixxi, bħat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 8(4) tad-Direttiva 91/439, li Stat Membru jista’ jirrifjuta li joħroġ liċenzja ta’ sewqan lil applikant li l-liċenzja tiegħu kienet is-suġġett ta’ kanċellament fi Stat Membru ieħor. Għalhekk, Stat Membru ma huwiex obbligat li jipproċedi b’tali rifjut.
87. There is no provision either of Directive 2006/126 or of the travaux préparatoires of the latter to indicate that the annulment of a driving licence concerns, as the Freistaat Bayern, the German Government and the Commission have argued at the hearing, only formal requirements concerning the issuance of the driving licence. Moreover, the possibility cannot be excluded that, in certain Member States, annulment of a driving licence may constitute a measure relating to the capacity to drive, more severe than a withdrawal or a suspension, capable of penalising in particular driving under the influence of alcohol, which is at issue in the main proceedings. 87. Issa, la kwalunkwe dispożizzjoni tad-Direttiva 2006/126 u lanqas ix-xogħlijiet preparatorji tagħha ma jindikaw li l-kanċellament ta’ liċenzja jirrigwarda biss, kif sostnew matul is-seduta għas-sottomissjonijiet orali l-Freistaat Bayern, il-Gvern Ġermaniż u l-Kummissjoni, l-elementi proċedurali dwar il-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan. Barra minn hekk, ma jistax jiġi eskluż li, f’ċerti Stati Membri l-kanċellament ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan tista’ tikkostitwixxi miżura dwar il-kapaċità għas-sewqan, iktar severa minn irtirar jew minn sospensjoni, li jista’ b’mod partikolari jissanzjona s-sewqan taħt l-effetti tax-xorb li huwa inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali.
88. It would thus be paradoxical to interpret the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 as meaning that, in the case of restriction, suspension or withdrawal of a driving licence, it is no longer possible, by virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 11(4) of the said directive, for the holder to obtain a licence in another Member State, whereas such a possibility still exists in the event of annulment of a licence.
88. Għalhekk, huwa paradossali li t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 jiġi interpretat fis-sens li, f’każ ta’ restrizzjoni, ta’ sospensjoni jew ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan minn Stat Membru, ma jkunx iktar possibbli, abbażi tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) ta’ din id-direttiva, għad-detentur tagħha li jikseb liċenzja minn Stat Membru ieħor filwaqt li tali possibbiltà tibqa’ dejjem hemm f’każ ta’ kanċellament ta’ liċenzja.
89. In the present case, it is apparent from the above considerations that, since the driving licence issued to Mr Hofmann by the Czech authorities on 19 January 2009 was, as is apparent from paragraphs 19 and 20 of this judgment, issued after the expiry of the period of prohibition from applying for a new licence which accompanied the driving licence withdrawal pronounced against Mr Hofmann in Germany, the German authorities are not entitled to refuse to recognise the validity of the licence thus issued.
89. F’din il-kawża, mill-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti jirriżulta illi peress li l-liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa lil W. Hofmann mill-awtoritajiet Ċeki fid-19 ta’ Jannar 2009 seħħet, kif jirriżulta mill-punti 19 u 20 ta’ din is-sentenza, wara li kien skada l-perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni ta’ liċenzja ġdida li kien marbut mal-miżura ta’ rtirar tal-liċenzja mogħtija fil-Ġermanja kontra l-persuna kkonċernata, l-awtoritajiet Ġermaniżi ma jistgħux legalment jirrifjutaw li jirrikonoxxu l-validità tal-liċenzja hekk maħruġa.
90. It is, however, for the national court to verify, on the basis of the information referred to in paragraph 48 of this judgment and taking into account all the circumstances of the dispute before it (see, to that effect, Akyüz , paragraph 75), whether Mr Hofmann had his normal residence in the Czech Republic at the time of obtaining his driving licence. If that were not the case, the German authorities would be entitled to refuse to recognise the validity of that licence. It is apparent, in that respect, from the order for reference, that the latter is based on the hypothesis that the condition of normal residence in the territory of the Member State which issued the driving licence has been complied with.
90. Madankollu, hija l-qorti tar-rinviju li għandha tivverifika, fuq il-bażi tal-informazzjoni msemmija fil-punt 48 ta’ din is-sentenza u billi tieħu inkunsiderazzjoni l-fatti kollha tal-kawża mressqa quddiemha (ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza Akyüz, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 75) jekk W. Hofmann kellux ir-residenza normali tiegħu fir-Repubblika Ċeka meta kiseb il-liċenzja tas-sewqan tiegħu. Jekk dan ma kienx il-każ, l-awtoritajiet Ġermaniżi jistgħu legalment jirrifjutaw li jirrikonoxxu l-validità ta’ din il-liċenzja. F’dan ir-rigward, mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li dan huwa bbażat fuq l-ipoteżi li l-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li tkun ħarġet il-liċenzja tas-sewqan kienet ġiet osservata.
91. Having regard to all of the above considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence.
91. Fid-dawl tal-kunsiderazzjonijiet kollha preċedenti, ir-risposta għad-domanda magħmula għandha tkun li l-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126 għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li huma jipprekludu li Stat Membru jirrifjuta, lil hinn minn kull perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida imposta fuq id-detentur ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor u meta saħansitra l-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju ta’ dan tal-aħħar tkun ġiet osservata, milli jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ din il-liċenzja tas-sewqan, meta l-imsemmi detentur kien is-suġġett, fit-territorju tal-ewwel Stat Membru, ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan preċedenti.
Costs Fuq l-ispejjeż 92. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
92. Peress li l-proċedura għandha, fir-rigward tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, in-natura ta’ kwistjoni mqajma quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, hija din il-qorti li tiddeċiedi fuq l-ispejjeż. L-ispejjeż sostnuti għas-sottomissjoni tal-osservazzjonijiet lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, barra dawk tal-imsemmija partijiet, ma jistgħux jitħallsu lura.
Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence. L-Artikolu 2(1) u t-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 11(4) tad-Direttiva 2006/126/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tal-20 ta’ Diċembru 2006, dwar il-Liċenzji tas-Sewqan (Tfassil mill-Ġdid) għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li huma jipprekludu li Stat Membru jirrifjuta, lil hinn minn kull perijodu ta’ projbizzjoni għal applikazzjoni ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan ġdida imposta fuq id-detentur ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor u meta saħansitra l-kundizzjoni ta’ residenza normali fit-territorju ta’ dan tal-aħħar tkun ġiet osservata, milli jirrikonoxxi l-validità ta’ din il-liċenzja tas-sewqan, meta l-imsemmi detentur kien is-suġġett, fit-territorju tal-ewwel Stat Membru, ta’ miżura ta’ rtirar ta’ liċenzja tas-sewqan preċedenti. Top