Sevda Aykul v Land Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 2015-04-23
40. In that regard, it must be noted that while Directive 91/439 was repealed with effect from 19 January 2013 pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 17 of Directive 2006/126, a number of provisions of Directive 2006/126, such as Articles 2(1) and 11(4) thereof, became applicable from 19 January 2009 in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 18 of Directive 2006/126 (see, to that effect, judgment in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 31). That is not, however, the case as regards Article 11(2) of Directive 2006/126, which is not among the provisions mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 18 of that directive.
42. It should be noted that, in the context of the procedure established by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (see judgment in Le Rayon d’Or , C‑151/13, EU:C:2014:185, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
43. To that end, the Court may extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the legislation and the principles of EU law that require interpretation in view of the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings (see judgment in Le Rayon d’Or , C‑151/13, EU:C:2014:185, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
45. It must be noted that, according to settled case-law, Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 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, to that effect, judgments in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 40, and Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraphs 43 and 44).
46. Moreover, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that it is for the issuing Member State to investigate whether the minimum conditions imposed by EU law, particularly those relating to residence and fitness to drive laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/126, have been satisfied and, therefore, whether the issuing of a driving licence is justified (see, to that effect, judgment in Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraphs 45 and 47).
47. Once the authorities of one Member State have issued a driving licence in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/126, 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 its holder satisfied those conditions on the day on which that licence was issued (see, to that effect, judgment in Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraphs 46 and 47).
54. A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does, however, fall within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126. That provision which, as is clear from paragraphs 40 and 41 of the present judgment, applies ratione temporis to the facts of the case in the main proceedings, provides that a Member State is to refuse to recognise, in the case of a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in its territory, the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State, irrespective of whether or not that licence had been issued before the date on which that provision became applicable (see, to that effect, judgment in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 32).
58. Next, while the Court has principally interpreted the first subparagraph of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 (which reproduced the content of the former provision) in the context of cases concerning the possibility, for a person whose driving licence had been subject to a measure of restriction, suspension or withdrawal in the territory of one Member State, of the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State after the adoption of that measure being recognised by that first Member State (see, in particular, judgments in Wiedemann and Funk , C‑329/06 and C‑343/06, EU:C:2008:366; Zerche and Others , C‑334/06 to C‑336/06, EU:C:2008:367; and Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240), the wording of those provisions also covers situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the first Member State is refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State prior to the decision to restrict, suspend or withdraw that licence.
60. It should be noted, however, that the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126, which does not provide for the possibility of exchanging a driving licence, merely allows a Member State that is not the Member State of normal residence to take measures in accordance with its national legislation and as a result of unlawful conduct in its territory by the holder of a driving licence previously obtained in another Member State, the scope of those measures being limited to that territory and the effect limited to the refusal to recognise the validity of that licence within that territory.
62. It must be noted in that regard that the Court has already held that a Member State in whose territory an offence is committed has sole competence to punish that offence by ordering, as necessary, withdrawal of the driving licence or of the right to drive, with or without an order that no application may be made for the issue of a new driving licence during a particular period (see judgment in Weber , C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640, paragraph 38).
69. Furthermore, it must be held that to compel a Member State to recognise unconditionally the validity of a driving licence in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings would be contrary to the EU objective of general interest that is the improvement of road safety and which is precisely what Directive 2006/126 seeks to achieve (see, to that effect, judgment in Glatzel , C‑356/12, EU:C:2014:350, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
71. Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and second questions and to part (a) of the fourth question is that Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State in whose territory the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State is staying temporarily is not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder in the territory of the first Member State after that driving licence has been issued that results, under the national law of the first Member State, in unfitness to drive motor vehicles.
The third question and part (b) of the fourth question
73. In that regard, while the Court has repeatedly found, as is apparent from paragraph 46 of the present judgment, that it is for the issuing Member State alone to investigate whether the minimum conditions imposed by EU law, particularly those relating to fitness to drive, have been satisfied (see, to that effect, judgment in Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 45), it must be borne in mind that, in the case in the main proceedings, the fitness to drive was challenged not at the stage at which the driving licence was issued but following an offence committed by the holder of that licence after it had been issued, the penalty for which took effect only in the territory of the Member State in which that offence had been committed.
76. It must be pointed out, however, that it follows from the case-law of the Court that the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 may not be used by a Member State as a basis for refusing indefinitely to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of that licence has been subject to a restrictive measure in the territory of the first Member State (see, to that effect, judgment in Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
77. Acknowledgment that a Member State is entitled to rely on its national provisions in order to refuse indefinitely to recognise a driving 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, judgment in Kapper , C‑476/01, EU:C:2004:261, paragraph 77; order in Kremer , C‑340/05, EU:C:2006:620, paragraph 30; and judgments in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 57, and Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 78).
78. It is ultimately a matter for the referring court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts in the main proceedings and interpret national legislation, to examine whether in this instance, in applying its own rules, the Federal Republic of Germany is not in fact refusing indefinitely to recognise Ms Aykul’s driving licence. In that context, it is also for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions subject to which, under German legislation, a person in Ms Aykul’s situation may recover the right to drive in German territory comply with the principle of proportionality and, in particular, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of Directive 2006/126, which is to improve road safety.
79. However, the Court of Justice, which is called on to provide answers of use to the referring court, may provide guidance based on the documents relating to the main proceedings and on the written and oral observations which have been submitted to it, in order to enable that court to give judgment (see, to that effect, judgment in Wiering , C‑347/12, EU:C:2014:300, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
84. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the third question and to part (b) of the fourth question is that a Member State which refuses to recognise the validity of a driving licence in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is competent to lay down the conditions with which the holder of a driving licence must comply in order to recover the right to drive in that Member State’s territory. It is for the referring court to examine whether, in applying its own rules, the Member State in question is not in fact refusing indefinitely to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State. In that context, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions laid down by the legislation of the first Member State, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of Directive 2006/126, which is to improve road safety.
Costs