Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann.
Date: 2015-05-21
21. Mr Wittmann considers that the facts giving rise to previous judgments of the Court on that issue are not comparable to those of the present case. He claims, referring to the Court’s case-law on the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences (judgment in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 46), that no new exceptions should be added to that principle. In his opinion, the Court expounded two clear exceptions, namely failure to comply with the residence requirement, which is not relevant to the case in the main proceedings, and, secondly, obtaining a foreign driving licence after the withdrawal of the national authorisation or during a period of suspension. According to Mr Wittmann, he did not obtain his Polish driving licence during a period of suspension since that suspension entered into force only after obtaining that licence.
22. The European Commission notes that the referring court found similarities between the present case and the facts which gave rise to the judgment in Weber  (C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640). It considers that it is necessary to examine whether there exist, between those two cases, differences justifying a different legal appraisal. In its opinion, that is not the case because Mr Wittmann is, with regard to his Polish driving licence, in a situation comparable to that in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Weber  (C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640).
23. It must be noted that, according to settled case-law, Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126, and Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), which precedes Directive 2006/126, provide for the mutual recognition, without any formality, of driving licences issued by Member States (see, to that effect, judgments in Akyüz , C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 40, and Hofmann , C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraphs 43 and 44).
26. It should be noted that, in the case giving rise to the judgment in Weber  (C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640), at issue was a person who had driven a motor vehicle in Germany under the influence of drugs and who was subject, in addition to a fine, to a one-month suspension of his driving licence. His German driving licence had then been withdrawn for the same reasons. After the administrative decision to suspend his driving licence, but before that decision became final, and before the later decision withdrawing his licence, that person had obtained a Czech driving licence which the German authorities had refused to recognise.
27. By that judgment, the Court held that Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, in its territory, a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose right to drive was withdrawn in the territory of the first Member State, even though that withdrawal was ordered after the issue of that driving licence, provided that that licence was obtained after a decision to suspend the licence issued in the first Member State and both the suspension and the withdrawal are based on grounds existing at the date of issue of the second driving licence (see, to that effect, judgment in Weber , C‑1/07 EU:C:2008:640, paragraph 41. See also judgment in Apelt , C‑224/10, EU:C:2011:655, paragraph 31).
28. It is true, in the main proceedings, that the measure imposed on Mr Wittmann differs from those imposed on Mr Weber, due to the fact that Mr Weber still had his German driving licence when he committed in Germany the offence at issue in the case giving rise to the judgment in Weber  (C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640), which was not the case concerning Mr Wittmann at the time of the offence at issue in the main proceedings. However, the fact that Mr Wittmann no longer possessed a German driving licence which could have been withdrawn is irrelevant for the purposes of the application of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126. In those circumstances, a prohibition on obtaining a new driving licence must be regarded as a measure restricting, suspending or withdrawing a licence within the meaning of that provision (see, to that effect, judgment in Apelt , C‑224/10, EU:C:2011:655, paragraph 33, in which the Court held that a confiscation may be regarded as constituting a suspension within the terms of Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439).
30. To require a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued to a person by another Member State, although a measure prohibiting the issue of a driving licence in the first Member State has been pronounced against that person by that Member State with respect to events which took place before the second Member State issued that licence, would have the effect of encouraging persons committing offences in the territory of a Member State who are likely to be subject to such a measure to travel to another Member State in order to obtain a new licence and thus evade the administrative or criminal consequences of those offences and would ultimately destroy the confidence on which the system of mutual recognition of driving licences rests (see, to that effect, judgment in Weber , C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640, paragraph 39).
31. The fact that the judgment announcing that measure became final after the issue of the driving licence in the second Member State is in that regard irrelevant, since that licence was obtained after the delivery of that judgment and the grounds justifying that measure existed on the date that licence was issued (see, to that effect, judgment in Weber , C‑1/07, EU:C:2008:640, paragraphs 36 and 41).