Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz.
Date: 2009-02-19
48. In that connection, the answer must be that the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to considering provisions of Community law only and it has no jurisdiction to rule on national law (see, to that effect, Case C‑453/04 innoventif  [2006] ECR I‑4929, paragraph 29).
49. In any event, under Article 234 EC, the Court of Justice is empowered only to give rulings on the interpretation or the validity of a Community provision on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it (see Case 104/77 Oehlschläger  [1978] ECR 791, paragraph 4, and Case C‑11/07 Eckelkamp and Others  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 52).
53. Moreover, Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439, which provides that no person may hold a driving licence from more than one Member State, was irrelevant when the German driving licence was issued in 1994 since the said directive came into force only on 1 July 1996, at which date Directive 80/1263 was repealed (Case C‑230/97 Awoyemi  [1998] ECR I‑6781, paragraph 33).
56. Although it is true that Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439 affirms the single nature of a driving licence (see Joined Cases C‑329/06 and C‑343/06 Wiedemann and Funk  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 70, and Joined Cases C‑334/06 to 336/06 Zerche and Others  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 67), it is also true that the sole effect of that provision is to prohibit the issue of a second Community driving licence after the date at which the provision was applicable, namely 1 July 1996, at which date Directive 80/1263 was repealed.
74. It is apparent from the first recital in Directive 91/439 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, inter alia, 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; Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 49; Zerche and Others , paragraph 46; and Case C‑1/07 Weber  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 26).
75. 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 (see, to that effect, Awoyemi , paragraphs 41 and 42; Case C‑246/00 Commission  v Netherlands  [2003] ECR I‑7485, paragraphs 60 and 61; Kapper , paragraph 45; Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 50; Zerche and Others , paragraph 47; and Weber , paragraph 26; order in Case C‑227/05 Halbritter  [2006] ECR I‑49, paragraph 25; order in Case C‑340/05 Kremer  [2006] ECR I‑98, paragraph 27).
76. 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 required by Article 7(1) of Directive 91/439, have been satisfied and, therefore, whether the issue of a driving licence is justified ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 52; Zerche and Others , paragraph 49).
77. 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 observed. 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 ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 53; Zerche and Others , paragraph 50).
79. However, Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 permit the Member States, under certain circumstances, in particular, as is apparent from the final recital in the directive, for reasons of road safety, to apply their national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of driving licences in relation to any licence-holder having normal residence in their territory.
80. The right provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439 may be exercised 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, Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 59, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 56; orders in Halbritter , paragraph 38, and Kremer , paragraph 35; and the order in Case C‑225/07 Möginger  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 36).
81. Although it is true that Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439 does not authorise the Member State of normal residence to refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State merely because the holder has earlier had a previous licence withdrawn in the first Member State, that provision nevertheless authorises the latter, subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, to apply to that holder its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the licence if his conduct subsequent to the issue of the licence justifies it ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 66, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 63).
83. The Court has held in that regard 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 ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 65; Zerche and Others , paragraph 62; and the order in Möginger , paragraph 38).
84. However, the authorisation contained in Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 constitutes a derogation from the general principle of mutual recognition of driving licences and is, therefore, to be interpreted strictly ( Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 60; Zerche and Others , paragraph 57; and Weber , paragraph 29).
85. The Court has held that Article 8(4) may 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, Kapper , paragraph 76; Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 63; Zerche and Others , paragraph 60; and the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 28, and Kremer , paragraph 29).
86. 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; Zerche and Others , paragraph 60; and the orders in Halbritter , paragraph 27; Kremer , paragraph 29; and Möginger , paragraph 44).
91. Thus, the Court has held that a Member State may not refuse to recognise, in its territory, the right to drive stemming from a driving licence 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 withdrawal of the licence previously obtained there, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence (see Wiedemann and Funk , paragraph 64, and Zerche and Others , paragraph 61; orders in Halbritter , paragraph 32, and Kremer , paragraph 38).
92. In those cases, the unfitness to drive, punished by withdrawal of the driving licence in a Member State, was set aside by the test of fitness carried out by another Member State when the later driving licence was issued.
93. At that time, the issuing Member State, as is pointed out in paragraph 76 of the present judgment, must, in particular, verify, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 91/439, that the candidate satisfies the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving.