C-253/01

Case C-253/01 S.A. Krüger v Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam) «(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 91/439/EEC – Driving licences – Mutual recognition – Compulsory exchange)» Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 29 January 2004      Summary of the Order Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licence – Directive 91/439 – Driving licence issued by the Member State of origin which cannot be registered in the registry of driving licences of the host Member State – Requirement to exchange licence – Not permissible – Fulfilment of the conditions for the renewal of licence in that State – Burden of proof on the holder of the licence – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Prohibited – Not applicable in a situation purely internal to a Member State (Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1) Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Directive 96/47, setting out the principle of mutual recognition of Community model driving licences, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in its territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its register of driving licences.It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to apply some of its national rules to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence.That conclusion is not affected by the fact that a Member State is prevented from requiring Community nationals who have their residence there to exchange their driving licences issued by another Member State for a national driving licence, while the holders of a national licence, who are primarily nationals of the host Member State, are required to exchange that licence periodically for a new one. Any discrimination which nationals of a Member State may suffer under the law of that State fall within the scope of that law and must therefore be dealt with within the framework of the internal legal system of that State.see paras 35-37, operative part ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 29 January 2004 (1) ((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 91/439/EEC – Driving licences – Mutual recognition – Compulsory exchange)) In Case C-253/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between S.A. Krüger and Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer, on the interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) 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 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), and of the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement for persons, THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by way of a reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following Order By order of 27 June 2001, received at the Court on 2 July 2001, the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam (District Court, Rotterdam) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions on the interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) 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 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1; hereinafter the Directive), and of the provisions of the EC Treaty on the free movement of persons. Those questions were raised in proceedings between Ms Krüger and the Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer (Road Traffic Authority Board) on the registration and exchange in the Netherlands of the driving licence held by the claimant. Relevant provisions Community legislation The first recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 reads as follows: ... for the purpose of the common transport policy, and as a contribution to improving road traffic safety, as well as to facilitate the movement of persons settling in a Member State other than that in which they have passed a driving test, it is desirable that there should be a Community model national driving licence mutually recognised by the Member States without any obligation to exchange licences. The ninth recital in the preamble to that directive reads as follows: ... the provisions set out in Article 8 of Directive 80/1263/EEC, and in particular the obligation to exchange driving licences within a period of one year of changing normal residence, constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons; ... this is inadmissible in the light of the progress made towards European integration. Article 1 of Directive 91/439 provides: 1. Member States shall introduce a national driving licence based on the Community model described in Annex I or Ia, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.2. Driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised.3. Where the holder of a valid national driving licence takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued the licence, the host Member State may apply to the holder of the licences its national rules on the period of validity of the licences, medical checks and tax arrangements and may enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration. Article 2(2) of Directive 91/439 reads as follows: Member States shall take all necessary steps to avoid any risk of forgery of driving licences. Under Article 7(5) of that directive no person may hold a driving licence from more than one Member State. Article 8 of Directive 91/439 provides: 1. Where the holder of a valid national driving licence issued by a Member State has taken up normal residence in another Member State, he may request that his driving licence be exchanged for an equivalent licence; it shall be for the Member State effecting the exchange to check, if necessary, whether the licence submitted is in fact still valid. 2. Subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, the Member States of normal residence may apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, exchange the licence for that purpose. 3. The Member State effecting the exchange shall return the old licence to the authorities of the Member State which issued it and give the reasons for so doing. 4. A Member State may refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person who is, in the former State's territory, the subject of one of the measures referred to in paragraph 2. A Member State may likewise refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant who is the subject of such a measure in another Member State.... National legislation In the Netherlands, most of the provisions governing driving licences are contained in the general legislation on road traffic, of which the Wegenverkeerswet (Law on road traffic) of 21 April 1994 (Stbl. 1994 No 475), as amended (Stbl. 1996 No 276; hereinafter the WVW 1994), forms part. Article 107(1) of the WVW 1994 requires the driver of a motor vehicle operating on public roads to be in possession of a driving licence issued by the competent authority authorising that person to drive that vehicle, it being understood that the authority contemplated is the competent one in the Netherlands. Article 107(2) lays down the various characteristics the licence must have, in particular that it must be valid. Article 108(1)(h) of the WVW 1994 provides: 1. Article 107 shall not apply to drivers of: ... (h) motor vehicles if those drivers reside in the Netherlands and the competent authority of another Member State of the European Communities or another Contracting Party to the European Economic Area has issued them with a driving licence valid for driving a motor vehicle such as the one they are driving, for the period of validity in the Netherlands fixed when that licence is registered in the registry of driving licences or, if the licence is not registered in the registry of driving licences or if the period of validity in the Netherlands fixed at the time of registration is less than one year, provided that a year has not elapsed since the day of their establishment in the Netherlands. Under Article 109 of the WVW 1994: 1. The period of validity in the Netherlands fixed at the time of registration provided for in Article 108(1)(h) shall be: (a) 10 years from the date of issue if the driving licence was issued to a person who had not yet reached the age of 60 at the date of issue; ... Under Article 122(1) of the WVW 1994, a driving licence issued to an applicant who has not yet reached the age of 60 has a period of validity of 10 years from the date of issue. When the applicant is aged between 60 and 65 years, the driving licence is valid from the date of issue until the date on which the holder reaches the age of 70. When the applicant is aged 65 or over, the driving licence has a period of validity of five years from the date of issue. Article 177(1) of the WVW 1994 provides that driving without a driving licence, with an expired driving licence or with a driving licence which does not satisfy the requirements imposed by or under that Law is to be subject to a penal sanction of up to two months in prison or a fine. Article 2(1) of the Wet administratiefrechtelijke handhaving verkeersvoorschriften (Law on the administrative implementation of the traffic rules) of 3 July 1989 (Stbl. 1989 No 300), as most recently amended by the Law of 28 October 1999 (Stbl. 1999 No 469; hereinafter the WAHV), provides for the application of administrative sanctions instead of the penal sanctions provided for in the WVW 1994 in the case of certain conduct which infringes provisions established by or under the latter. The main proceedings and the questions referred According to the order for reference, Ms Krüger, a German national, has lived and worked in the Netherlands since January 1996. She is the holder of a German driving licence issued by the German authorities on 2 September 1983. That licence is valid for the holder's lifetime in accordance with German law. In order to comply with Article 108(1)(h) of the WVW 1994, Ms Krüger applied to the Road Traffic Authority Board for registration of that licence by letter dated 14 June 1996. By decision of 1 October 1996, the board refused to allow this registration on the ground that the licence in question had been issued more than 10 years previously. Under Netherlands law such a licence could not be registered and had to be exchanged for a Netherlands driving licence. Ms Krüger brought an action against this decision before the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam, arguing that the refusal to allow the application for registration of the driving licence constitutes, first, a restriction on freedom of movement for persons which cannot be justified on objective grounds of public interest and, secondly, is contrary to the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences set out in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439, as interpreted by the Court in Case C-193/94 Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos [1996] ECR I-929. The Road Traffic Authority Board contended before that court that the fact that it is impossible to register a driving licence issued more than 10 years previously does not constitute a restriction on freedom of movement for persons since it applies equally to holders of a Netherlands driving licence and to holders of a driving licence issued by another Member State. In any event, even if the Netherlands legislation constituted such a restriction, that restriction would be justified in relation to the objective pursued, namely the renewal of driving licences every 10 years. It added that requiring the holder of a German driving licence who is established in the Netherlands to exchange that driving licence for one issued by the Netherlands is not contrary to Directive 91/439. In its order for reference, the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam states that, for a person in Ms Krüger's position, the provisions of the WVW 1994 in point of fact result in an obligation existing or, at least, arising to exchange their driving licence within the period of one year if they do not want to come into conflict with the law. Both the ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 and paragraph 42 of Case C-230/97 Awoyemi [1998] ECR I-6781 appear to show that that directive obliges Member States to avoid requiring holders of driving licences issued by a Member State to exchange that driving licence for one issued by the host Member State. In those circumstances, as the national court was of the opinion that, before it could resolve the case before it, an interpretation of Community law was required, it decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 1. Must Directive 91/439 ─ more particularly Article 1(1) and (2) thereof ─ be interpreted as meaning that national legislation adopted in implementation of that directive is consistent with it where under that legislation an obligation exists or arises for the holder of a driving licence issued by the German authorities, which is valid for the holder's lifetime, to exchange that licence within one year of moving his normal place of residence to the Netherlands, because a driving licence issued more than 10 years previously in another Member State cannot be registered in the Netherlands and, if the driving licence is not registered, the holder commits an offence when driving a motor vehicle in the Netherlands? 2. Does national legislation such as that described in the first question and which has the consequences set out therein constitute a restriction on freedom of movement for persons and, if so, can that restriction be justified by the consideration that it enables the data featured on the document to be regularly renewed and the document to be adjusted to technological improvements as regards the requirements which the document should meet from the point of view of security and prevention of fraud? The first question In its first question the national court is essentially asking whether Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 91/439 must be interpreted as meaning that legislation of a Member State which requires holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in its territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be entered in its register of driving licences is contrary to the directive. Since it considered that the answer to the question referred could be clearly deduced from existing case-law, the Court, in accordance with Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, informed the national court that it proposed to give its decision by reasoned order and invited the parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit any observations they might have on that proposal. The United Kingdom Government and the Commission raised no objection to the Court's intention to give its decision by reasoned order, but Ms Krüger and the Netherlands, Spanish and Finnish Governments were not in favour of that course. In order to reply to the question formulated in this manner it should be noted, first, that it is apparent from paragraphs 60 to 63 and 67 to 70 of Case C-246/00 Commission v Netherlands [2003] ECR I-7485 that Directive 91/439 precludes legislation of a Member State which requires compulsory registration of driving licences issued by other Member States when their holders move to that Member State. Having pointed out, in paragraphs 60 and 61 of Commission v Netherlands that, in accordance with its case-law, the mutual recognition of driving licences provided for under Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439 is to be carried out without any formality (see Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos, paragraph 26, and Awoyemi, paragraph 41) and that, in addition, the obligation of mutual recognition of driving licences is a precise and unconditional obligation and the Member States have no discretion as to the measures to be adopted in order to comply with the requirement (see Awoyemi, cited above, paragraph 42), the Court held in paragraph 63 of the judgment that the compulsory registration of driving licences issued by another Member State provided for in the Netherlands legislation constitutes a formality within the meaning of the case-law cited above and is thus contrary to the principle of the mutual recognition of driving licences set out in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439. It further held in paragraphs 67 to 70 of Commission v Netherlands, cited above, that the compulsory registration of driving licences issued by another Member State is not necessary to enable a Member State to exercise its discretion, provided for by Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439, to apply to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State who is established in the Netherlands its national rules on the period of validity of the licences, medical checks and tax arrangements and to enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration. First of all, the Court noted that the fact that a licence issued by another Member State is not registered in the Netherlands does not prevent the Netherlands authorities from applying correctly the national provisions on the duration of validity of driving licences by adding 10 years to the date of issue stated on the driving licence when road checks are carried out. Next, it held that the registration at issue here also does not appear essential in order to enable the competent authorities to ensure that the national provisions governing the renewal of driving licences and medical examinations have been complied with, since it is for the holder of the driving licence to prove that the relevant provisions have been complied with. Accordingly, it is sufficient to inform holders of driving licences issued by other Member States of the obligations they have under national legislation when they take the steps necessary to take up residence in the Netherlands and apply the sanctions provided for in the event of non-compliance with the provisions in question. Lastly, the Court held that the fact that in some Member States driving licences made of polycarbonate are used does not make compulsory registration of those licences essential either because, contrary to the contentions of the Netherlands Government, those licences must, as is apparent from Annex Ia(2) to Directive 91/439, contain a space reserved for the possible entry by the host Member State of information essential for administering the licence. In the second place, it is important to note that the Court has also held that Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of Directive 91/439, read in conjunction with the ninth recital in the preamble to that directive, preclude Member States, in particular, from requiring the exchange of driving licences issued by another Member State, regardless of the nationality of the holder (see to this effect Awoyemi, cited above, paragraph 42). That interpretation has been confirmed recently by the Court in Commission v Netherlands, cited above. In paragraph 72 of that judgment it held that it is apparent from the ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 that the directive is expressly intended to abolish systems for exchanging driving licences. Therefore it follows clearly from the case-law that a requirement by a Member State to register or exchange driving licences which were not issued by its own authorities when the holders of those licences move to that Member State is contrary to Directive 91/439. It follows that Directive 91/439 precludes national legislation such as that in question in the main proceedings which requires holders of driving licences issued by a Member State other than the host Member State to register or, in some circumstances, exchange that driving licence for a national driving licence. It should be added that, as is clear from point 28 of this order, it is for the holder of the driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence. 35 That conclusion is not affected by the argument of the Netherlands Government that preventing a Member State from requiring Community nationals who have their residence there to exchange their driving licences issued by another Member State for a national driving licence, while the holders of a national licence, who are primarily nationals of the host Member State, are required to exchange that licence for a new one every 10 years constitutes discrimination against the nationals of that Member State. 36 As is apparent from the case-law of the Court, any discrimination which nationals of a Member State may suffer under the law of that State fall within the scope of that law and must therefore be dealt with within the framework of the internal legal system of that State (Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 Uecker and Jacquet [1997] ECR I-3171, paragraph 23). 37 In the light of these considerations, the answer to the first question, as reformulated, must be that Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 91/439 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in its territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its register of driving licences. It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to prove that he fulfils conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence. The second question 38 In the light of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question. Costs 39 The costs incurred by the Netherlands, Spanish, Italian, Finnish and United Kingdom Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. On those grounds, THE COURT (Third Chamber), in answer to the questions referred to it by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam by order of 27 June 2001, hereby rules: Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in its territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its registry of driving licences.It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence. Luxembourg, 29 January 2004. R. Grass A. Rosas Registrar President of the Third Chamber – Language of the case: Dutch.