|
15.8.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 209/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06) v Land Baden-Württemberg and Peter Funk (C-343/06) Stadt Chemnitz
(Joint Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06) (1)
(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol - New licence issued in another Member State - Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State - Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)
(2008/C 209/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06), Peter Funk (C-343/06)
Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-329/06), Stadt Chemnitz (C-343/06)
Re:
Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Intepretation of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4), and Annex III, of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence fraudulently obtained in another Member State by a holder who was the subject of an administrative decision to withdraw his national driving licence in his State of residence on grounds of the use of drugs — Abuse of rights
Operative part of the judgment
|
1) |
On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise 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 the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence. In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued 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. |
|
2) |
It is contrary to Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, for a Member State bound, in accordance with that directive, to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State, to suspend that right temporarily while the latter Member State investigates the procedure followed in the issuing of that licence. In contrast, in that same context, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to decide to suspend that right if it is clear from entries in that licence or from other incontestable information supplied by that other Member State that the condition of residence imposed in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive was not satisfied at the moment when that licence was issued. |