On 28 October 2020, the Court of Justice held its judgment in Case C-112/19, Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) and Article 11(1) and (4) of Directive 2006/126/EC. The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Marvin M. and the Kreis Heinsberg (district of Heinsberg, Germany), concerning the latter’s decision refusing to recognise the driving licence issued to Mr M. by the Dutch authorities.

Since he was found driving under the influence of narcotics, on 20 September 2016 Mr M., who was issued with a driving licence for vehicles in categories AM, B and T from the German authorities, was notified by the latter of the intention to withdraw his right to drive. However, after informing them that he was no longer residing in Germany, on 13 October 2016 Mr M. made a declaration of residence in the Netherlands, where, on 1 November 2016, he requested for his German driving licence to be exchanged for a Dutch one. Despite, on 9 November 2016, the Kreis Heinsberg withdrew Mr M.’s right to drive and ordered him to return his driving licence without delay, on 17 November 2016 the competent Dutch authorities issued a Dutch driving licence to Mr M. in exchange for his German one and informed the Kreis Heinsberg.

On 17 January 2017, during a new roadside check performed in Germany, the police services determined that Mr M. did not have a valid right to drive on the territory of that Member State, and therefore the Kreis Heinsberg declared that the driving licence issued to Mr M. in the Netherlands did not authorise him to drive vehicles in Germany. Consequently, Mr M. contested that decision before the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Administrative Court of Aachen, Germany; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice three questions for a preliminary ruling.

By the first question, the referring court asked whether Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that mutual recognition, without any formality, which it lays down is applicable to a driving license issued following an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive. According to the Court, since Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 does not make any distinction between the means by which the driving licence is issued, the principle of mutual recognition applies equally as regards the driving licence issued from an exchange, subject to the exceptions laid down by the directive itself.

By the second and third questions, the referring court asked whether the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence which results from an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive, on the ground that that Member State, prior to that exchange, had withdrawn the authorisation to drive from the holder of the driving licence which was the subject of that exchange. According to the Court, the principle of prohibition of fraud and abuse of rights is a general principle of European law with which individuals must comply, so that, if it is established that a person has fraudulently obtained a driving licence in the context of an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/126, that person is not at any time to claim the recognition, in a Member State, of the driving licence accordingly obtained. Therefore, if the referring court assesses that Mr M.’s conduct seeking to obtain a new driving licence by exchanging his licence in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/126 constitutes an abusive or fraudulent one, the decision to refuse to recognise his driving licence must be considered definitive.

Marco Stillo