Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern.
Date: 2011-05-19
19. According to the Court’s settled case-law, 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 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 (Case C‑321/07 Schwarz [2009] ECR I‑1113, paragraph 75 and case-law cited).
20. It is for the Member State of issue to investigate whether the minimum requirements imposed by European Union law, particularly those relating to residence and fitness to drive, laid down in Article 7(1) of that directive, have been satisfied and, therefore, whether the issue of a driving licence is justified ( Schwarz , paragraph 76 and case-law cited).
21. 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 that licence was issued, its holder fulfilled those conditions ( Schwarz , paragraph 77 and case-law cited).
23. A Member State may refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued subsequently to a licence being withdrawn by another Member State if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by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 (see, to that effect, Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 73, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 70).
26. In that regard, it should be noted that the European Union legislature has taken the view, in accordance with the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439, that it was necessary, on road safety grounds, for the minimum requirements for the issue of a driving licence to be laid down. Those minimum requirements include, under Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, that of residence, according to which the issue of a driving licence is subject to normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the licence, or to evidence of having been studying there for at least six months.
27. The Court has already held that 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, that condition is indispensable if observance of the condition of fitness to drive is to be monitored ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 69, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 66).
28. Furthermore, as a precondition making it possible to establish whether an applicant has observed the other conditions imposed by Directive 91/439, the residence condition, which determines the Member State of issue, assumes special importance in relation to the other conditions laid down by that directive ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 70, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 67).
33. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.
Costs