F. v Stadt Karlsruhe.
Date: 2021-04-29
In that regard, 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 them no room for discretion as to the measures to be adopted in order to comply with it (judgments of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited, and of 28 October 2020, Kreis Heinsberg, C‑112/19, EU:C:2020:864, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
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 (judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraphs 46 and 47 and the case-law cited).
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 of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
Furthermore, since Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 does not make any distinction between the means by which the driving licence is issued, namely following success in the tests laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2006/126, following an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive or following a renewal pursuant to Article 7(3) of that directive, the principle of mutual recognition applies equally as regards the driving licence issued from such a renewal, subject to the exceptions laid down by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 October 2020, Kreis Heinsberg, C‑112/19, EU:C:2020:864, paragraph 26).
The Court however held, in paragraph 71 of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul (C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257), 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 Court inter alia considered, in that regard, in paragraph 60 of that judgment, that the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 allows a Member State that is not the Member State of 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 obtained in another Member State, the scope of those measures being limited to that territory and their effect limited to the refusal to recognise the validity of that licence within that territory.
It also took the view that, in such a situation, in which fitness to drive is 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, that Member State is competent to lay down the conditions with which the holder of that driving licence must comply in order to recover the right to drive in that Member State’s territory (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraphs 73 and 84).
The Court however made it clear that it was for the referring court to examine whether, by applying its own rules, the Member State in question did not in fact refuse indefinitely to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State and that, in that context, it was the referring court’s responsibility to ascertain whether the conditions laid down by the legislation of the first Member State, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, did not exceed the limits of what was appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of Directive 2006/126, which is to improve road safety (judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraph 84).
Admittedly, as the European Commission notes in its written observations, it is also apparent from the case-law of the Court that a Member State cannot make the recognition of the validity of a driving licence issued in another Member State subject to a condition set by the legislation of the first Member State for the issue of licences, such as the production of a medical-psychological expert’s report, where that licence has been issued after the withdrawal by the first Member State of an earlier driving licence, after the expiry of any period of prohibition from applying for a new licence (see, to that effect, as regards Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) – which was replaced by Directive 2006/126 – judgment of 19 February 2009, Schwarz, C‑321/07, EU:C:2009:104, paragraph 91  and the case-law cited, and, as regards Directive 2006/126, judgment of 26 April 2012, Hofmann, C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 84).
In such a situation, after all, the unfitness to drive, punished by withdrawal of the driving licence in the first Member State, was lifted by the test of fitness carried out by another Member State when a driving licence was subsequently issued. On that occasion, the issuing Member State, as is recalled in paragraph 27 of the present judgment, must, in particular, verify, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/126, that the candidate satisfies the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving (see, to that effect, as regards Article 7(1) of Directive 91/439, which corresponds to Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/126, judgment of 19 February 2009, Schwarz, C‑321/07, EU:C:2009:104, paragraphs 92 and 93).
It should be recalled that the imposition, under Directive 2006/126, of an obligation of mutual recognition of driving licences issued by the Member States is the result of the laying down, by that directive, of the minimum requirements for the issue of an EU driving licence (judgment of 28 February 2019, Meyn, C‑9/18, EU:C:2019:148, paragraph 28).
It is however for the referring court to examine whether, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the rules, provided for by the legislation of the first Member State, laying down the conditions with which the holder of a driving licence deprived as a result of unlawful conduct of the right to drive in its territory in which he or she was staying temporarily must comply in order to recover the right to drive in that territory, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued by Directive 2006/126, consisting in improving road safety (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 April 2015, Aykul, C‑260/13, EU:C:2015:257, paragraph 78), which would be the case in particular if they precluded that licence holder from being able to provide evidence that his or her fitness to drive, after the expiry of any period of prohibition from applying for a new licence, was checked in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 when his or her licence was renewed in his or her Member State of normal residence and that the purpose of that check corresponds with that of the check ordered by the legislation of the first Member State.