Criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper.
Date: 2004-04-29
24. It should be observed in that regard that according to settled case-law it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the special features of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. Consequently, where the questions referred involve the interpretation of Community law, the Court is, in principle, obliged to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38; Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 18; Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley [2003] ECR I-1931, paragraph 21; and Case C‑18/01 Korhonen and Others [2003] ECR I‑5321, paragraph 19).
25. Moreover, it follows from that case-law that the Court may decline to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see PreussenElektra , paragraph 39; Canal Satélite Digital , paragraph 19; Adolf Truley , paragraph 22; and Korhonen and Others , paragraph 20).
45. 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 ( Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos , cited above, paragraph 26, and Awoyemi , cited above, paragraph 41). 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 ( Awoyemi , paragraph 42, and Case C-246/00 Commission v Netherlands [2003] ECR I‑7485, paragraph 61).
46. In its judgment in Commission v Netherlands , the Court has thus already expressly dismissed the possibility of a host Member State introducing systematic checks to verify that the requirement as to residence in the Member State which issued the licence, laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 9 of Directive 91/439, was properly complied with by the holders of driving licences issued by other Member States. At paragraph 75 of that judgment, it held, first, that it is for the authorities which issue driving licences to ensure that applicants have their normal residence in the State issuing the licence, and, secondly, that if a person holds a driving licence issued by a Member State, that should be deemed to be proof that the licence holder has satisfied the conditions for the issue of a licence provided for in Directive 91/439. Accordingly, the host Member State cannot then require the holder to prove again that he or she actually satisfied the conditions laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 9 of Directive 91/439, without violating the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences.
47. It follows that the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences also means that when a host Member State is carrying out a traffic check within its territory, it is precluded from refusing to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State to the driver of a vehicle on the ground that, according to the information available to the first Member State, the holder of the licence in question had, at the date of its issue, established his normal residence in that Member State and not in the issuing Member State (order of 11 December 2003 in Case C-408/02 Silva Carvalho , not published in the ECR, paragraph 22). As the Advocate General has noted at point 44 of his Opinion, the considerations set out in paragraph 75 of the judgment in Commission v Netherlands , relating to a requirement that the holder of the driving licence must prove as a matter of course that he has satisfied the residence requirement in the context of a registration procedure relating to the licence in a Member State which did not issue that licence, also apply to verification procedures or ad hoc investigations by that Member State for the purpose of deciding whether to grant or to refuse recognition to that licence.
48. Given that Directive 91/439 confers exclusive competence on the Member State which issues a licence to ensure that driving licences are issued in compliance with the residence requirement set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 9 of that directive, it is for that Member State alone to take appropriate measures in relation to driving licences held by persons who are subsequently shown to have failed to satisfy that requirement. Where a host Member State has good reason to doubt the validity of one or more licences issued by another Member State, it must so inform the latter under the rules relating to mutual assistance and the exchange of information contained in Article 12(3) of that directive. Should the Member State which issued the licence fail to take the appropriate measures, the host Member State may bring proceedings against the first State under Article 227 EC for a declaration by the Court that there has been a failure to comply with the obligations arising under Directive 91/439.
70. Inasmuch as the first paragraph of Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439 permits a Member State to refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State if the holder is, in the first Member State’s territory, subject to a measure which restricts, suspends, withdraws or cancels the right to drive, it constitutes an exception to the general principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by the Member States laid down in Article 1(2) of the Directive.
71. As the first recital in the preamble to the Directive makes clear, that principle was established in order to facilitate the movement of persons settling in a Member State other than that in which they have passed a driving test. In that regard, the Court has held that rules relating to the issue and mutual recognition of driving licences by the Member States exert an influence, both direct and indirect, on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Treaty relating to freedom of movement for workers, to freedom of establishment and to the freedom to provide services. In view of the importance of individual means of transport, possession of a driving licence duly recognised by the host State may affect the actual pursuit by persons subject to Community law of a large number of occupations for employed or self-employed persons and, more generally, freedom of movement (Case 16/78 Choquet [1978] ECR 2293, paragraph 4, and Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos , cited above, paragraph 23).
72. According to settled case-law, the provisions of a directive which derogate from a general principle established by that directive must be strictly interpreted (see, as regards exceptions to the general principle that value added tax is to be levied on all services supplied for consideration by a taxable person, Case C-141/00 Kügler [2002] ECR I‑6833, paragraph 28, and, as regards exceptions to the general principle of recognition of professional qualifications giving the right to take up a regulated profession, Case C-102/02 Beuttenmüller [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 64). The same must apply a fortiori where that general principle aims to facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, such as those referred to in paragraph 71 of this judgment.
73. It should none the less be made clear that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the national court, Article 8(4) of the Directive does not apply only where an application is made to the authorities of a Member State by the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State for the exchange of that licence. Although Article 8 of the Directive contains various provisions specifically regulating the substantive and formal conditions applicable to the exchange or replacement of a licence where the holder has submitted a request to that effect to the competent authorities, Article 8(2) and (4) serves a different aim, namely that of permitting Member States, within their territory, to apply their national provisions concerning the withdrawal, suspension and cancellation of driving licences. The exercise by the Member States of the rights given to them by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Directive is thus not dependent on a voluntary act of the holder of a licence issued by another Member State, such as an application for the exchange of that licence. It should be noted that, according to the Court’s case-law, Directive 91/439 is expressly intended to abolish systems for exchanging driving licences and precludes a Member State from requiring that driving licences that were not issued by its own authorities be registered or exchanged where the holders of those licences move to the territory of that State (see Commission v Netherlands , cited above, paragraph 72, and order of 29 January 2004 in Case C-253/01 Krüger [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 30 to 32).
74. In the present matter, it is clear from the documents in the case and the observations submitted to the Court that the national court must have regard in the main proceedings, inter alia, to the provisions of Paragraph 28(4)(3) and (4) of the FeV 1999. Those provisions, which apply where the holder of a licence has his normal residence outside the Federal Republic of Germany, preclude the German authorities from recognising the validity of a licence issued by another Member State, where, in particular, a court in Germany has ordered that the licence be withdrawn. It appears that under the national rules a person in that situation may obtain a valid driving licence in Germany only if he submits a new request for a licence and satisfies the appropriate requirements and tests. However, since 1 September 2002, Paragraph 28(5) of the FeV 2002 expressly provides that the German authorities may permit the person concerned to use a licence issued by another Member State where there no longer remain any grounds justifying the withdrawal of the licence or the temporary ban on obtaining a new licence.
76. According to Article 8(4) of Directive 91/439, a Member State may refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person who is the subject in that Member State of one of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 of that article. Given that that provision must be strictly interpreted, it may not be used by a Member State as a basis for refusing indefinitely to recognise, in relation to a person who has been the object in its territory of a measure withdrawing or cancelling a previous licence issued by that State, the validity of any licence that may subsequently be issued to him by another Member State. Where a temporary ban on obtaining a new licence with which the measure in question was coupled has already expired in a Member State, the provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Directive 91/439, taken together, preclude that Member State from continuing to refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence subsequently issued to the person concerned by another Member State.
77. That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the applicable national provisions, in particular those set out in Paragraph 28 of the FeV 1999, have as their specific aim the indefinite extension of the temporal effects of a measure withdrawing or cancelling a previous licence and the reservation to the German authorities of the right to issue a new licence. As the Advocate General noted at point 75 of his Opinion, to allow a Member State to rely on its national provisions in order to refuse indefinitely to recognise a licence issued by another Member State would be fundamentally incompatible with the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences which is the linchpin of the system established by Directive 91/439.