Arthur Wiedemann v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-329/06) and Peter Funk v Stadt Chemnitz (C-343/06).
Date: 2008-06-26
45. The first point to be noted here is that in the procedure laid down by Article 234 EC 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. In addition, it is to be borne in mind that the Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of Community law necessary to national courts in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those provisions are not expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by those courts (Case C-280/91 Viessmann  [1993] ECR I-971, paragraph 17; Case C-42/96 Immobiliare SIF  [1997] ECR I-7089, paragraph 28, and Case C‑45/06 Campina  [2007] ECR I-2089, paragraphs 30 and 31).
49. The first recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 states that the general principle of mutual recognition of driving licences issued by the Member States, laid down in Article 1(2) of that directive, was established in order to facilitate the movement of persons settling in a Member State other than that in which they have passed a driving test (Case C-476/01 Kapper  [2004] ECR I‑5205, paragraph 71).
50. The Court has consistently held that Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439 provides for mutual recognition, without any formality, of driving licences issued by Member States. That provision imposes on 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 (judgments in Case C‑230/97 Awoyemi  [1998] ECR I‑6781, paragraphs 41 and 43; Case C-246/00 Commission  v Netherlands  [2003] ECR I‑7485, paragraphs 60 and 61; and Kapper , paragraph 45; orders of 6 April 2006 in Case C‑227/05 Halbritter [2006] ECR I‑0049, and of 28 September 2006 in Case C‑340/05 Kremer  [2006] ECR I-0098).
51. It follows that the host Member State may not impose any formality as a precondition for recognition of a driving licence issued by another Member State. It is therefore contrary to that principle of mutual recognition to demand of the holder of a driving licence issued by one Member State that he should apply for recognition of that licence in another Member State (see, to that effect, Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 60 et seq.).
52. It is for the issuing Member State to investigate whether the minimum conditions imposed by Community law, particularly those relating to residence and fitness to drive, have been satisfied and, therefore, whether the issue of a driving licence – as the case may be, of a new licence – is justified.
53. As soon, therefore, as the authorities of one Member State have issued a driving licence in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 91/439, the other Member Stat es are not entitled to investigate whether the conditions for issue laid down by that directive have been observed (see, to that effect, the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 34, and Kremer , paragraph 27). The possession of a driving licence issued by one Member State has to be regarded as constituting proof that, on the day that licence was issued, its holder fulfilled those conditions (see, to that effect, Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 75; the order of 11 December 2003 in Case C-408/02 Da Silva Carvalho , not published in the ECR and Kapper , paragraph 46). The fact that, in accordance with point 5 of Annex III to that directive, a Member State may require, for any issue of a driving licence, a medical examination stricter than those mentioned in that annex does not, therefore, affect that Member State’s duty to recognise driving licences issued by the other Member States in accordance with that directive.
54. It follows, first, 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 the host Member State.
55. Second, it is contrary to the principle of mutual recognition for a host Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that, according to the information supplied by the host Member State, the holder of that licence did not, at the date of its issue, satisfy the necessary conditions for obtaining it (see, to that effect, the order in Da Silva Carvalho , paragraph 22, and Kapper , paragraph 47).
56. Inasmuch as Directive 91/439 confers on the issuing Member State exclusive competence to check that driving licences are issued in compliance with the requirements imposed by that directive, it is for that Member State alone to take appropriate measures in respect of which it is subsequently established that the holders did not satisfy those conditions (see, to that effect, the order in Da Silva Carvalho , paragraph 23, and Kapper , paragraph 48).
57. If a Member State has good reason to doubt the validity of a licence issued by another Member State, it must so inform the latter under the rules relating to mutual assistance and the exchange of information contained in Article 12(3) of Directive 91/439. Should the issuing Member State fail to take the appropriate measures, the host Member State may bring proceedings against it under Article 227 EC for a declaration by the Court that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations arising under Directive 91/439 (see, to that effect, the order in Da Silva Carvalho , paragraph 23, and Kapper , paragraph 48).
59. It is, however, to be borne in mind, first, that that right, as it arises from Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439, may be exercised only by reason of some conduct of the person concerned after he has obtained a driving licence issued by another Member State (see, to that effect, the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 38, and Kremer , paragraph 35).
60. Second, the first subparagraph of Article 8(4), which authorises a Member State to refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence obtained in another Member State by a person who is, in the first Member State’s territory, the subject of a measure restricting, suspending, withdrawing or cancelling a licence, constitutes a derogation from the general principle of mutual recognition of driving licences and is, therefore, to be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, Kapper , paragraphs 70 and 72, and the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 35, and Kremer , paragraph 28).
63. Nor may that provision be relied on by a Member State to refuse indefinitely to recognise, in relation to a person who has been the object in its territory of a measure withdrawing or cancelling a previous licence issued by that State, the validity of any licence that may subsequently be issued to him by another Member State (see, to that effect, Kapper , paragraph 76, and the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 27, and Kremer , paragraph 29). To accept that a Member State is entitled to rely on its national provisions in order to refuse indefinitely to recognise a licence issued by 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 91/439 ( Kapper , paragraph 77, and the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 28, and Kremer , paragraph 30).
64. More particularly, the Court has held in paragraph 38 of its order in Kremer  that when a person has been the object of a measure withdrawing his driving licence in the territory of a Member State but not including a period in which it is prohibited to apply for a new licence, it is contrary to Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 for that Member State to refuse to recognise, in its territory, the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued in another Member State and, therefore, the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following that withdrawal, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.
65. In contrast, it is clear from the foregoing that, when the person concerned has been the object of 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.
66. Similarly, although Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439 does not permit the Member State of normal residence to refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State just because the holder has earlier had a previous licence withdrawn in the Member State of normal residence, that provision does nevertheless allow that State, as recalled in paragraphs 58 and 59 above, subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, to restrict, suspend, withdraw or cancel the new licence if that is warranted, according to the law of the host Member State, by the holder’s conduct after the issue of the new licence.
69. As remarked by the Commission of the European Communities in its observations, the residence condition helps, inter alia, the fight against ‘driving-licence-tourism’, in the absence of complete harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the issuing of driving licences. Moreover, as the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 78 of his Opinion, that condition is indispensable if observance of the condition of fitness to drive is to be monitored.
70. Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439, in providing that no person may hold a driving licence from more than one Member State, affirms the single nature of a driving licence. So, as a precondition making it possible to establish whether a particular candidate has observed the other conditions imposed by the directive, the condition of residence, which determines the Member State of issue, assumes special importance in relation to the other conditions laid down by the directive.
72. It follows that, when it is possible to determine, not in the light of information supplied by the host Member State but on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that the condition of residence laid down by Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 had not been satisfied when that licence was issued, the host Member State, in whose territory the holder of that licence has been the object of a measure withdrawing an earlier driving licence, may refuse to recognise the right to drive stemming from the driving licence later issued by another Member State following any period in which it is prohibited to apply for a new licence.
73. Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to be given to the questions referred must be that, on a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State following any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and therefore, the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence. In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.
Whether it is possible to suspend temporarily the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State
76. It is to be borne in mind that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the national court alone, before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the judicial decision to be made, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it refers to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, in particular, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38; Case C‑341/05 Laval un Partneri  [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 45; and Case C‑450/06 Varec  [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 23).
77. Nevertheless, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction ( Varec , paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical (see, in particular, PreussenElektra , paragraph 39, and Laval un Partneri , paragraph 46).