Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern.
Date: 2012-04-26
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 In that regard, it should be noted that, whilst Directive 91/439 will be repealed only with effect from 19 January 2013, Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 are applicable as from 19 January 2009, in accordance with the second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 (see judgment of 1 March 2012 in Case C‑467/10, paragraph 31).
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.
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.
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.
Reply of the Court of Justice
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‑4057, paragraph 19, and Akyüz , paragraph 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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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‑3097, 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).
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‑12379, 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.