delivered on 13 July 2023 (1)

Case C‑227/22

IL

Regionalna direktsia ‘Avtomobilna administratsia’ Pleven

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Directive 2006/126/EC – Driving licences – Physical and mental fitness for driving – Frequency of medical examinations to determine the psychological and mental fitness of drivers – Document certifying the psychological fitness of drivers)

1.This request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria) under Article 267 TFEU concerns the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. (2)

2.The request has been made in proceedings between IL, a Bulgarian national, and the Regionalna direktsia ‘Avtomobilna administratsia’ Pleven (Regional Motor Vehicle Administration Directorate, Pleven, Bulgaria) concerning a decision imposing an administrative penalty on IL on the ground that he was unable to produce a valid certificate of psychological fitness, as required by national law, when stopped for a roadside check.

3.In the present case, the Court is called upon to rule on the scope of the harmonisation which Directive 2006/126 seeks to achieve and on the competence of the Member States to adopt more stringent measures in order to ensure road safety. The Court will have to establish whether the certificate of psychological fitness required by the Bulgarian legislation constitutes a measure which is consistent with the mechanisms envisaged by that directive or whether it must instead be regarded as an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of persons and, accordingly, as a measure incompatible with one of the principal objectives pursued by the EU legislature. A key aspect of the present case will be to establish the function of the certificate of psychological fitness at issue and to determine whether that document is superfluous in the light of the probative value which driving licences already have.

II. Legal context

4.Article 7 of Directive 2006/126 provides:

‘1. Driving licences shall be issued only to those applicants:

(a)who have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and who meet medical standards, in accordance with the provisions of Annexes II and III;

…

(b)As from 19 January 2013, licences issued by Member States for categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E shall have an administrative validity of 5 years;

…

(a)continuing compliance with the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving set out in Annex III for driving licences in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E; and

…

Member States may limit the period of administrative validity set out in paragraph 2 of driving licences issued to novice drivers for any category in order to apply specific measures to such drivers, aiming at improving road safety.

Member States may limit the period of administrative validity of the first licence issued to novice drivers for categories C and D to 3 years in order to be able to apply specific measures to such drivers, so as to improve their road safety.

Member States may limit the period of administrative validity set out in paragraph 2 of individual driving licences for any category in case it is found necessary to apply an increased frequency of medical checks or other specific measures such as restrictions for traffic offenders.

…’

5.Annex III to that directive, entitled ‘Minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle’, provides:

DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Annex, drivers are classified in two groups:

1.1.Group 1:

drivers of vehicles of categories A, A1, A2, AM, B, B1 and BE.

1.2.Group 2:

drivers of vehicles of categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E.

…

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

…

Group 2:

4.Applicants shall undergo medical examinations before a driving licence is first issued to them and thereafter drivers shall be checked in accordance with the national system in place in the Member State of normal residence whenever their driving licence is renewed[.]

5.The standards set by Member States for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences may be stricter than those set out in this Annex.

…

MENTAL DISORDERS

Group 1:

13.1.Driving licences shall not be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers who suffer from:

—severe mental disturbance, whether congenital or due to disease, trauma or neurosurgical operations,

—severe mental retardation,

—severe behavioural problems due to ageing; or personality defects leading to seriously impaired judgment, behaviour or adaptability,

unless their application is supported by authorised medical opinion and, if necessary, subject to regular medical check-ups.

Group 2:

The competent medical authority shall give due consideration to the additional risks and dangers involved in the driving of vehicles covered by the definition of this group.

…’

B. Bulgarian law

6.Article 51(4) of the Zakon za balgarskite lichni dokumenti (Law on Bulgarian identity documents) provides:

‘The period of validity of driving licences for categories С, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E and Т shall be five years.’

7.Article 8(1) of the Naredba no 36 ot 15.05.2006 za iziskvaniyata za psihologicheska godnost i usloviyata i reda za provezhdane na psihologicheskite izsledvaniya na kandidati za pridobivane na pravosposobnost za upravlenie na MPS, na vodachi na MPS i na predsedateli na izpitni komisii i za izdavane na udostovereniya za registratsiya za izvarshvane na psihologicheski izsledvaniya (Regulation No 36 on the requirements for psychological fitness and the conditions and procedure for the conducting of psychological examinations of driving licence applicants, drivers and chairpersons of driving examination boards and for the issue of registration certificates for conducting psychological examinations) of 15 May 2006 (‘Regulation No 36’) provides:

‘A certificate of psychological fitness shall be presented upon taking up any employment and performing activities as a taxi driver, as a driver of vehicles for public transport of persons or goods or as a chairperson of a driving examination board.’

8.Article 8(2) of Regulation No 36 provides:

‘The certificate of psychological fitness shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issue …’

9.Article 8(4) of that regulation provides:

‘The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall undergo a psychological examination every three years from the date of issue of the last certificate of psychological fitness.’

10.Article 13(1) of the Naredba no 1-157 ot 1.10.2002 za usloviyata i reda za izdavane na svidetelstvo za upravlenie na motorni prevozni sredstva, otcheta na vodachite i tyahnata distsiplina (Regulation No 1-157 on the conditions and procedure for the issue of driving licences, the register of drivers and their discipline) of 1 October 2002 (‘Regulation No 1-157’) is worded as follows:

‘A driving licence shall be first issued on the basis of an original record of having successfully passed a driving test, officially communicated by the relevant regional department of the Darzhavna avtomobilna inspektsia [(State Motor Vehicle Inspectorate, Bulgaria)]; in this connection, the person shall submit:

…

4. a copy of the certificate of psychological fitness for the issue of a driving licence for categories C1, С, D1, D and Ttm (tram cars);

5. a copy of the certificate of completion of a road-traffic accident first aid course for drivers;

6. a declaration that he or she does not have his or her normal residence in another Member State of the European Union and that he or she does not hold a valid driving licence issued by a Member State of the European Union;

7. a copy of the certificate of completion of at least the first stage of secondary education and, if the education was completed in a foreign country, a certificate in accordance with Article 110(2) of the Naredba No 11 ot 1 septemvri 2016 g. za otsenyavane na rezultatite ot obuchenieto na uchenitsite [Regulation No 11 on the evaluation of the results of pupils’ education] of 1 September 2016 …’

11.Article 15(2) of Regulation No 1-157 provides:

‘For the renewal pursuant to paragraph 1, drivers shall submit the documents referred to in Article 13(1)(1), (3) and (6), and the old driving licence.’

12.Pursuant to Article 178c(5) of the Zakon za dvizhenieto po patishtata (Law on Road Traffic), any person who provides taxi services or own-account transport operations or who is engaged in the public transport of persons or goods without a valid certificate of psychological fitness is to be subject to a fine of 500 leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 255).

13.According to Paragraph 35(3) of the Dopalnitelnite razporedbi na Zakona za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Zakona za dvizhenieto po patishtata (Additional provisions to the Law amending and supplementing the Law on Road Traffic), the Law on Road Traffic implements the requirements of Directive 2006/126.

III. The facts giving rise to the dispute, the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

14.IL holds a driving licence for vehicles in categories A, A1, А2, АМ, В, В1, С, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E and TCT. His driving licence is valid from 28 November 2019 to 28 November 2024.

15.On 4 August 2021, IL was stopped by the inspection authorities for checks while driving a vehicle combining a tractor and an attached semi-trailer, with which he was providing public goods transport services. The checks carried out revealed that he was unable to present a valid certificate of psychological fitness. The last certificate of psychological fitness held by him had been issued on 7 October 2017 and had been valid until 7 October 2020.

16.The inspection authorities issued a notice establishing an administrative offence for infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 36 on the ground that IL had not presented a valid certificate of psychological fitness. On the basis of that notice, on 24 August 2021, the Director of the Regional Motor Vehicle Administration Directorate, Pleven, adopted a decision imposing an administrative penalty on IL, in accordance with which, on account of the infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 36 and on the basis of Article 178c(5) of the Law on Road Traffic, IL was required to pay a fine of BGN 500 (approximately EUR 255).

—

IL challenged that fine before the Rayonen sad Sevlievo (District Court, Sevlievo, Bulgaria), submitting, in essence, that Article 8 of Regulation No 36 and the fine referred to in Article 178c(5) of the Law on Road Traffic were contrary to the provisions of Directive 2006/126. That court, with reference to point 4 of Annex III to that directive, held that a Member State could impose additional, more stringent requirements on drivers as regards the frequency of periodic examinations. On the basis of that reasoning, the Rayonen sad Sevlievo (District Court, Sevlievo) concluded, by judgment of 10 December 2021, that there was no inconsistency between the national law and EU law and upheld the decision imposing an administrative penalty.

IL brought an appeal in cassation before the referring court, the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo), arguing that the first-instance court had misapplied Directive 2006/126.

The referring court considers that the provisions of Directive 2006/126 are unclear and, in a sense, contradictory. First, it points out that, according to recital 9 of that directive, proof of fulfilment of compliance with minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving by drivers of vehicles used for the transport of persons or goods should be provided when the driving licence is issued and periodically thereafter. It is expressly recommended in that recital that medical examinations in that connection should coincide with a renewal of driving licences and therefore be determined by the period of validity of the licence. Second, the referring court states that point 4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 allows Member States to provide, in their national legislation, for medical examinations for drivers in group 2 (categories C, СЕ, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E) to take place at such intervals as they think fit, and that those intervals need not correspond to the period of validity of the driving licence.

In the light of the foregoing, the referring court is uncertain whether, under the provisions of Directive 2006/126, Member States are permitted to require drivers in those categories to undergo medical examinations intended to establish, at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence, their psychological and mental fitness, and to require a separate document, in addition to the driving licence, certifying such fitness, or whether the possession of a driving licence which is valid for those categories is sufficient to certify psychological and mental fitness, as that was established at the time the driving licence was first issued or renewed.

The referring court states that another question raised before it was whether the penalty provided for by the Bulgarian legislation in respect of a driver who has a valid driving licence for categories C, CE, Cl, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E and TCT, but who cannot produce a certificate of psychological fitness to the inspection authorities because it has expired, is contrary to the synchronised period of administrative validity of driving licences and medical examinations for physical and mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126, or the application of the national rules by the authority imposing the penalty involves a breach of EU law.

In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

(2)‘(1) Do the provisions of Directive 2006/126 give Member States the possibility to require drivers of vehicles of categories С, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E to undergo medical examinations to determine their psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence, and in this connection to require a separate document (in addition to the driving licence) certifying their fitness? Or does the holding of a valid driving licence for the abovementioned categories also certify the psychological and mental fitness of the driver, as that fitness was determined when the driving licence was first issued or renewed?','prefix':'(1)','indentation':1,'kind':'Paragraph','alignment':'left','bold':false,'italic':false},{

(2)Do Article 7(1) of [Directive 2006/126] and recitals 8 and 9 thereof allow national legislation such as that at issue in the present proceedings, which provides for additional conditions – beyond the minimum requirements for driving tests (Annex II to Directive 2006/126) and the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness (Annex III to [Directive 2006/126]) – aimed at certifying the psychological fitness of drivers of motor vehicles transporting persons and/or goods?

(3)If the answer to the [second] question is in the affirmative: must those requirements be subject to the regime laid down by [Directive 2006/126], in particular recital 9, fourth sentence, and Article 7(3) of Directive 2006/126, as regards the synchronisation of the administrative validity of driving licences and medical examinations relating to the application of the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness?’

The order for reference dated 22 March 2022 was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2022.

By order of 27 May 2022, registered at the Registry on 30 May 2022, the referring court sent an addendum to its order for reference.

IL, the Bulgarian Government and the European Commission lodged written observations within the period prescribed by Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Rules of Procedure, on 14 February 2023, the Court invited the Bulgarian Government to answer a question in writing. The answer to that question was lodged within the prescribed period.

At the hearing on 3 May 2023, IL’s legal representative and the Agents for the Bulgarian Government and for the Commission presented oral argument.

The rules on driving licences are essential elements of the common transport policy, contribute to improving road safety, and facilitate the free movement of persons. The Court has recognised, in its case-law, that possession of a driving licence duly recognised by the host State may affect the actual pursuit by persons subject to EU law of a large number of occupations for employed or self-employed persons. (3) The Court has also ruled that the holder of a driving licence may use it to prove his or her nationality before the authorities of the host State, as if it were a document equivalent to an identity card or a passport. (4) It is important to highlight this point, since possession of those documents is a formal requirement, laid down in the legislation, for the purpose of exercising the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Seen in that light, the driving licence can be said to contribute to the realisation of the rights of EU citizens in the internal market.

Despite the progress achieved with harmonising the rules on driving licences, significant differences persist between Member States in the rules on the intervals between the renewal of licences and the subcategories of vehicles, which has necessitated progress towards greater harmonisation in order to contribute to the implementation of EU policies. That is the objective which was pursued by the EU legislature in adopting Directive 2006/126, and it is therefore understandable that national measures which appear to depart from the measures provided for by that directive are subject to in-depth scrutiny. This is especially true of the requirements relating to the issue of a driving licence, notwithstanding the power of Member States to impose more stringent requirements in some cases.

As I stated in the introduction, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, the requirements which are imposed by Directive 2006/126 and whether the certificate of psychological fitness provided for by the Bulgarian legislation is in line with the mechanisms envisaged by that directive or whether it should rather be regarded as an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of persons and, therefore, as a measure incompatible with one of the legislative objectives referred to above. (5) This will depend primarily on the function assigned to that document. The second question, raised subsequently by the referring court, appears to provide some clarification of the first, whereas the third question is raised only in the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative. It is, in my view, logical to examine the questions in the order in which they were raised.

B. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling

By its first question, the referring court is seeking (i) clarification whether the provisions of EU law, in particular Directive 2006/126, confer on Member States the power to require drivers of vehicles of categories С, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E to undergo medical examinations in order to determine their psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence, and in that regard, to require a separate document certifying their fitness, in addition to the driving licence, or (ii) confirmation that the holding of a valid driving licence certifies also the psychological and mental fitness of the driver, in so far as that fitness was checked when that licence was issued or renewed.

In order to examine that question, it must be established, as a first step, whether the requirement of psychological fitness laid down in the Bulgarian legislation falls within the scope of Directive 2006/126. Only if this is established will it then be necessary, as a second step, to determine the requirements with which the Bulgarian legislation at issue must comply.

(a) Medical examinations to determine physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle

As is apparent from Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/126, the driving licence is to authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined in that directive. In other words, it is necessary for a driver to hold a driving licence of the corresponding category in order to pursue an occupation involving the transport of persons and goods by road.

Under Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2006/126, driving licences are to be issued only to those applicants who have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and who meet the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness set out in Annex III to the directive. Moreover, Article 7(3)(a) of that directive requires that the renewal of driving licences is to be subject to compliance with those minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for licence holders of categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E.

It follows from the application of the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/126 that the mental fitness of holders of driving licences for vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E and, in particular, the mental fitness of persons working as professional drivers has already been evaluated and certified at the time of issue and renewal of those licences. In view of that, it seems strange to require holders of a valid driving licence also to be in possession of a separate certificate of mental fitness.

The requirement to be in possession of such a certificate constitutes an additional constraint, since the objectives of those certificates are already covered by the medical examinations as regards mental health required by Directive 2006/126. The need to meet road safety requirements, the free movement of persons, the need to avoid distortions of competition and the specific responsibility of drivers, objectives which are all referred to in recitals 8 and 9 of Directive 2006/126 and which warrant having to show that the minimum standards of mental fitness were met at the time a driving licence was issued, already benefit from harmonised protection under Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, that directive.

There is no objective reason to suppose that professional driving activities give rise to specific road safety issues that are not already covered by the examination of mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126. In that regard, it must be noted that, for the most part, driving licences for categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E are obtained by their holders precisely for the purpose of pursuing an activity as a professional driver. Since Directive 2006/126 also lays down minimum standards of mental fitness for drivers of vehicles in those categories, it is clear that those requirements also include the mental fitness standards which drivers must meet in order to pursue their professional activity.

Nor can it be argued that the harmonisation effected by Directive 2006/126 leaves room for the introduction of requirements relating to ‘psychological fitness’ which do not fall within the category of mental fitness. Mental health and, consequently, mental fitness include, in the final analysis, emotional, psychological and social well-being and therefore the concepts of ‘psychological health’ and ‘psychological fitness’.

Directive 2006/126 seeks to harmonise the minimum standards of mental fitness and specifies, in points 13.1 and 13.2 of Annex III thereto, the mental disorders to be taken into account in that regard. More specifically, point 13.1 refers in particular to ‘severe mental disturbance …, trauma’, it being possible to interpret the term ‘trauma’ broadly as including, inter alia, an acute or chronic event of an emotional, psychological or social nature. This demonstrates, first, that ‘psychological fitness’ is an element which may fall within the scope of that directive as an element of ‘mental fitness’, and second, that the EU legislature has already assessed the extent to which mental disorders should be taken into account for the purpose of issuing driving licences.

(b) The Bulgarian legislation relating to the examination of psychological fitness

The arguments put forward by the Bulgarian Government do not invalidate that conclusion, as I shall explain below.

First, the Bulgarian Government argues that ‘psychological fitness’ within the meaning of the national legislation should be understood not as ‘mental health’ and the absence of mental disorder or illness, but as fitness to pursue an occupation or activity. According to the Bulgarian Government, psychological examinations are not medical examinations. They are a separate procedure and a completely different type of expert examination. More specifically, it is a professional selection procedure, conducted according to purely psychological, not medical, criteria, by psychologists, using methods of experimental and differential psychology.

However, it must be noted that the Bulgarian Government acknowledges that the Bulgarian legislation ‘is intended to establish psychological fitness to drive power-driven vehicles without risk of road accidents in the light of professionally relevant psychological attributes’. Consequently, the psychological fitness examination also seems to have the purpose of certifying the emotional, psychological and social well-being of the person concerned, an essential requirement for driving a vehicle in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E. In so far as both types of examination are intrinsically linked to driving a specific vehicle, they are intended to ensure road safety. Seen in that light, there seems to be no essential distinction between the type of psychological fitness examination covered by the Bulgarian legislation and the examination provided for by Directive 2006/126.

Second, the Bulgarian Government argues that the national legislation at issue was already in force prior to the adoption of that directive. While the Bulgarian Government explains that the national legislation at issue ‘makes no reference whatsoever to Directive 2006/126’, it fails to state whether an examination as to compatibility was carried out by the Bulgarian authorities when transposing the directive in order to establish whether the legislation at issue is consistent with the mechanisms envisaged by that directive. In the absence of such an examination as to compatibility, doubts remain concerning that question.

Third, I should point out a certain inconsistency in the Bulgarian Government’s arguments because, on the one hand, it explains that during the psychological examination provided for by the national legislation, ‘professional drivers must present a valid driving licence, which implicitly presupposes compliance with all basic requirements, including the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving’. On the other hand, the Bulgarian Government emphasises the need for a psychological assessment in order to predict the future conduct of the person concerned on the road as well as of the risk of causing accidents.

The arguments put forward by the Bulgarian Government in support of the view that the examination of psychological fitness governed by the national legislation differs significantly from the examination of mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126 are not, in my view, convincing, since it is clear that there is an overlap of functions between the two types of document (the driving licence and the certificate of psychological fitness) and, accordingly, a likelihood of confusion as regards their practical usefulness. That fact significantly undermines the function of the driving licence as a document certifying fitness to drive a power-driven vehicle. As the Bulgarian Government confirmed at the hearing, possession of both documents is required on Bulgarian territory, whereas the driving licence alone should suffice in order to be authorised to drive a power-driven vehicle throughout the European Union.

It follows from the foregoing that, in so far as the Bulgarian legislation at issue relates, in essence, to elements which are already the subject of a minimum degree of harmonisation, that legislation must be regarded as falling within the scope of Directive 2006/126. In view of the fact that that directive harmonises the minimum standards of mental fitness for driving vehicles in the abovementioned category, I see no objective reason for imposing additional requirements where driving takes place in the context of a professional activity.

As I shall explain in more detail, I consider that Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, Directive 2006/126 do not permit national measures which require drivers who provide certain transport services also to hold a separate, supplementary certificate of mental fitness, since possession of a valid driving licence already certifies a driver’s mental fitness.

(a) The possibility of requiring proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness when the driving licence is renewed

A driver’s psychological and mental fitness is normally assessed when the driving licence is issued. However, the question arises as to whether Member States may also subsequently require proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness, in particular when the driving licence is renewed.

In that regard, it must be noted that point 4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 provides (in the French-language version) that ‘les candidats doivent faire l’objet d’un examen médical avant la délivrance initiale d’un permis et [que], par la suite, les conducteurs sont contrôlés conformément au système national en vigueur dans l’État membre de résidence normale où a lieu le renouvellement de leur permis de conduire’. A comparative analysis of the various language versions leads to the conclusion that that sentence must be interpreted as meaning that the examination in question must be carried out when the driving licence is renewed. (6)

It should be noted that the Bulgarian-language version of that provision does not fully correspond to the other language versions of Directive 2006/126, since the last sentence is missing. However, that omission cannot lead to a different interpretation of EU law. According to settled case-law, the necessity for uniform application and, accordingly, for uniform interpretation of an EU measure makes it impossible to consider one version of the text in isolation, but requires that it be interpreted on the basis of both the real intention of its author and the aim the latter seeks to achieve, in the light, in particular, of the versions in all languages. (7)

Therefore, notwithstanding the omission in the Bulgarian-language version of that provision, it is clear from the other language versions of Directive 2006/126 that the EU legislature seeks to ensure that medical examinations coincide with the renewal of a driving licence. As the referring court correctly pointed out in its request for a preliminary ruling, the fourth sentence of recital 9 of that directive supports that interpretation in so far as it expressly states that ‘such examinations should coincide with a renewal of driving licences and therefore be determined by the period of validity of the licence’.

It follows that there is no contradiction between recital 9 of Directive 2006/126 and point 4 of Annex III thereto, since both refer to the need for medical examinations to coincide with the renewal of driving licences.

(b) The possibility of requiring proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence

It is then necessary to examine whether that fact precludes Member States from requiring proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence. (8)

In that regard, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the various categories of vehicles. In accordance with Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2006/126, licences issued by Member States for categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E, which lie at the heart of the present case, are to have an administrative validity of five years.

As I have noted in this Opinion, point 4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 provides that ‘applicants shall undergo medical examinations before a driving licence is first issued to them and [that] thereafter drivers shall be checked in accordance with the national system in place in the Member State of normal residence whenever their driving licence is renewed’. On the assumption that the wording of a provision is the starting point for any interpretation, it must be noted that a combined reading of the abovementioned provisions leaves, in my view, no room for interpretation. The provisions at issue make no mention of the possibility of Member States laying down shorter periods between medical examinations for group 2 drivers.

While point 5 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 states that ‘the standards set by Member States for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences may be stricter than those set out in this Annex’ (emphasis added), it is important to point out that that provision refers to the possibility of imposing requirements going beyond the ‘minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle’ set out in that annex. In other words, the very title of the annex indicates the elements which are the subject of a minimum degree of harmonisation by Directive 2006/126. Those elements are the standards of physical and mental fitness. (9)

Accordingly, Member States may determine the manner in which medical examinations are carried out and be more stringent as regards the mental fitness of group 2 drivers in order to take account of the specific safety needs of that category of vehicles. By contrast, it is not possible to derogate unilaterally from the period of validity of the driving licence, which is governed by Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2006/126, in order to require proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness.

Although the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Directive 2006/126 permits Member States, in exceptional circumstances, to limit the period of administrative validity of individual driving licences for any category ‘in case it is found necessary to apply an increased frequency of medical checks’ in order to ensure road safety, it is important to note that that provision confirms the previously mentioned principle, according to which medical examinations must coincide with a renewal of driving licences and therefore be determined by the period of validity of that licence.

It follows from the foregoing that the Member States do not have the power to require proof of a higher level of psychological and mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of the driving licence.

(c) The possibility of requiring a separate document (other than the driving licence) certifying psychological and mental fitness

The conclusions of the above analysis make it possible to answer the question whether Member States are permitted to require a separate document (other than the driving licence) certifying psychological and mental fitness.

First, as I have explained in this Opinion, the objectives of the certificate of mental fitness required by the Bulgarian legislation are already covered by the medical examinations to determine mental health required by Directive 2006/126. Consequently, the driving licence, as governed by that directive, has the requisite probative value to demonstrate psychological and mental fitness to drive a power-driven vehicle in the relevant category.

Second, I have stated that Directive 2006/126 requires medical checks to be carried out before a driving licence is first issued and when the driving licence is renewed. It is therefore inappropriate, in my view, to issue a document such as the certificate of psychological fitness at a time other than that provided for by that directive.

Third, it must be noted that, whilst Directive 2006/126 provides only for a minimum degree of harmonisation of the national provisions relating to the conditions under which a driving licence may be issued, it does, however, bring about an exhaustive harmonisation of documents proving the existence of a right to drive which must be recognised by the Member States pursuant to Article 2(1) thereof. (10) This logically excludes the existence of the driving licence side by side with any other national document fulfilling the same function.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it appears unnecessary to require drivers to produce a separate document certifying psychological and mental fitness. Moreover, it seems to me that it cannot be ruled out that the requirement to obtain such a certificate might become an additional administrative burden, likely to constitute an unjustified obstacle and, accordingly, capable of undermining the free movement of persons, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. The existence of such an obstacle is manifest where the administrative procedure requires the payment of an additional charge, as in the present case, as the Bulgarian Government confirmed at the hearing in response to a question put by the Court.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the answer to the first question should be that Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring the holder of a valid driving licence for categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E to undergo a medical examination to determine his or her mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of his or her driving licence and from requiring in that respect a separate document, in addition to the driving licence, certifying his or her mental fitness.

By its second question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/126 is compatible with national legislation which provides for additional conditions – in addition to the minimum requirements for driving tests (Annex II to that directive) and the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle (Annex III to that directive) – aimed at certifying the psychological fitness of drivers of a vehicle used for the transport of persons or goods.

At the outset, it must be noted that the statement of the reasons which led the referring court to raise the two additional questions is very brief, which makes it difficult to understand. However, it is clear that the second question is intended to reword and clarify the first question. Accordingly, it seems that the referring court seeks to obtain information on the nature of the examinations which a Member State may introduce under its national legislation, as is the case in the main proceedings. It is on the basis of that information that the referring court will be able to assess whether the national legislation is consistent with the provisions of Directive 2006/126. The fact that the referring court expressly states that the Bulgarian legislation at issue provides for ‘additional conditions’ to those laid down by that directive seems to me to be an important factor to be taken into account when considering that question.

As I stated above, it follows from Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2006/126 that driving licences are to be issued only to applicants who have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test and who meet medical standards, in accordance with the provisions of Annexes II and III to that directive. Article 7(3)(a) of that directive requires that the renewal of a driving licence should be subject to continuing compliance with the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving set out in Annex III to that directive.

In view of the fact that the provisions contained in Annexes II and III to Directive 2006/126 impose obligations on the Member States, it seems to me necessary to examine them carefully. Annex II sets out the minimum requirements applicable to driving tests, in order to ensure that applicants have the knowledge, skills and behaviour required for driving. The test thus established must include a theoretical test and a test of skills and behaviour.

Annex III to Directive 2006/126 sets out minimum standards of physical and mental fitness. The section dedicated to ‘mental disorders’, points 13.1 and 13.2, defines the minimum standards of mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle. Point 13.1 sets out the circumstances in which a driving licence will not be issued to or renewed for group 1 applicants or drivers, that is to say, in cases of severe mental disturbance; severe mental retardation; severe behavioural problems due to ageing; or personality defects leading to seriously impaired judgment, behaviour or adaptability. A driving licence may not be issued to or renewed for such applicants or drivers ‘unless their application is supported by authorised medical opinion and, if necessary, subject to regular medical check-ups’.

With regard to group 2 drivers, who are the subject of the present request for a preliminary ruling, point 13.2 of Annex III supplements the provision set out in point 13.1 and allows the competent medical authorities of Member States to give consideration to the additional risks and dangers involved in the driving of vehicles covered by the definition of that group.

In the light of the foregoing, it is permissible to state that Directive 2006/126 does not prevent Member States from introducing more stringent conditions for examinations of mental fitness in respect of drivers of vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E solely for group 2 drivers, to the extent that those more stringent conditions are necessary to certify the absence of mental disorder in the light of the additional risks and dangers involved in driving those categories of vehicles.

It is apparent from point 4 of Annex III that group 2 drivers are subject to the periodic medical examinations provided for by national legislation when their driving licence is renewed. What is most important, however, is the fact that point 5 of Annex III expressly states that the standards set by Member States for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences may be stricter than those set out in that annex.

Consequently, when determining the medical examinations which group 2 drivers must undergo, Member States may introduce more stringent requirements for group 2 drivers than for group 1 drivers in order to detect possible ‘mental disorders’, as referred to in point 13.2 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126. The objective of such an approach is to adapt the medical examinations to certify the mental fitness of drivers to the specific safety needs of that category of vehicles.

Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to conclude from this that Directive 2006/126 confers unlimited powers on Member States. On the contrary, the measures adopted by the Member States must be consistent with the objectives of that directive. It may be inferred from a combined reading of Article 7 of, and Annex III to, that directive that this consideration excludes, in particular, the imposition of arbitrary additional requirements other than the medical examinations provided for in that directive for the purpose of establishing fitness to drive a power-driven vehicle.

Member States likewise cannot establish new categories of requirements other than those provided for in Annexes II and III to Directive 2006/126, since there would otherwise be a risk of undermining that directive’s objective of harmonisation. The second sentence of recital 8 expressly states that ‘standards for driving tests and licensing need to be harmonised’. In formulating new mental fitness requirements, Member States would be specifically going against that objective.

Similarly, it must be recalled that when imposing requirements which go beyond a minimum degree of harmonisation, Member States are bound by the general principles of EU law, including the fundamental rights and freedoms of the internal market. Consequently, if national authorities decide to introduce a more stringent examination with the aim of guaranteeing the absence of mental disorders capable of giving rise to a risk to road safety, they must ensure that any resulting restriction on the free movement of persons is duly justified and consistent with the principle of proportionality.

In that regard, it should be noted that, in the present case, the Bulgarian Government starts from the premiss that the psychological test provided for in its national legislation differs significantly from the examination of mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126, but provides no evidence that its assertion is true or that the psychological test in question actually improves road safety. Moreover, it must be noted that the Bulgarian Government did not take a position on the statement made by the Commission at the hearing that EU law already contains adequate rules, that is to say, in the area of recognition of professional qualifications, to take into account safety requirements associated with the carriage of goods and passengers. For those reasons, subject to the verification to be carried out by the referring court, it is in my view difficult to justify the additional administrative burden to which requiring drivers to obtain a certificate of psychological fitness amounts.

Furthermore, even in the event that the psychological test provided for in the Bulgarian national legislation differs significantly from the examination of mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, I doubt whether the introduction of a psychological test intended to predict the future behaviour of the person concerned on the road and his or her risk of causing accidents, which is not based on the requirements of Directive 2006/126, may be regarded as consistent with EU law. The psychological test at issue seeks, in fact, to create a new category of requirements and examinations that are not medical examinations aimed at verifying the absence of mental disorders likely to represent a danger to road safety, which is specifically excluded by Directive 2006/126.

For the reasons set out above, I propose that the answer to the second question referred should be that Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from introducing new categories of additional conditions, in addition to the minimum standards of mental fitness provided for in Annex III, aimed at certifying the psychological fitness of drivers of power-driven vehicles used for the transport of persons and goods.

By its third question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether any additional requirements permitted by Directive 2006/126 must coincide in duration with the period of validity of driving licences. That question appears to overlap with the first question raised by the referring court and has already been answered on the merits in the context of the examination of the first and second questions.

The analysis of those questions has shown that any more stringent requirement introduced at national level – in accordance with the objectives of Directive 2006/126 and the principle of proportionality – concerning the physical and mental fitness of drivers of vehicles used for the transport of passengers and goods must be aligned with the administrative validity of the driving licences and of the medical examinations carried out when those licences are issued or renewed.

In the light of the detailed analysis contained in this Opinion, and the answers which I propose to give to the first two questions, I do not consider it necessary to provide a separate specific answer to the third question.

VI. Conclusion

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria) as follows:

(1) Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring the holder of a valid driving licence for categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E to undergo a medical examination to determine his or her mental fitness at intervals shorter than the period of validity of his or her driving licence and from requiring in that respect a separate document, in addition to the driving licence, certifying his or her mental fitness.

(2) Article 7(1) and (3) of, and Annex III to, Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from introducing new categories of additional conditions, in addition to the minimum standards of mental fitness provided for in Annex III, aimed at certifying the psychological fitness of drivers of power-driven vehicles used for the transport of persons and goods. However, this does not prevent Member States from adopting more stringent measures in the context of the medical examinations provided for in that directive.

—

(1) Original language: French.

(2) OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

(3) See judgment of 29 April 2004, Kapper (C‑476/01, EU:C:2004:261, paragraph 71).

(4) See judgment of 17 February 2005, Oulane (C‑215/03, EU:C:2005:95, paragraphs 28 to 35).

(5) According to settled case-law of the Court, minimum harmonisation does not prevent the Member States from retaining or adopting more stringent measures, provided, however, that the latter are not liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by the directive in question and that they comply with the TFEU. On the latter point, the Court has stated that such measures may, notwithstanding their restrictive effect, be justified, provided that they meet an overriding requirement in the public interest, are appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see judgment of 7 July 2016, Muladi, C‑447/15, EU:C:2016:533, paragraphs 43 and 44).

(6) See the versions in Spanish (‘cada vez que renueven su permiso de conducción’), Danish (‘ved hver fornyelse af kørekortet’), German (‘bei jeder Erneuerung ihrer Fahrerlaubnis’), Estonian (‘igal juhiloa uuendamisel’), English (‘whenever their driving licence is renewed’), Italian (‘in occasione del rinnovo della patente’), Dutch (‘bij elke verlenging van het rijbewijs’), Polish (‘przy okazji przedłużania ważności prawa jazdy’) and Portuguese (‘sempre que a carta de condução seja renovada’).

(7) See judgments of 12 December 2013, X (C‑486/12, EU:C:2013:836, paragraph 19), and of 15 May 2014, Timmel (C‑359/12, EU:C:2014:325, paragraph 63).

(8) In its written response, the Bulgarian Government stated that the national legislation at issue has been amended subsequently so that the period of validity of the certificate of psychological fitness would become indefinite. Moreover, that certificate may be invalidated and reissued only in certain specific cases. Nevertheless, as the Bulgarian Government also explained, that legislative amendment does not deprive the dispute in the main proceedings of its subject matter, since that amendment does not cover cases such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings, in which it is common ground that he did not hold a valid certificate when an administrative penalty was imposed on him. For those reasons, I consider it appropriate to examine the questions referred on the basis of the national legislation applicable ratione temporis to the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings.

(9) See, in that regard, Rebler, A., ‘Die gegenseitige Anerkennung von Fahrerlaubnissen in der EU’, Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht, Vol. 25, No 11, 2021, p. 517.

(10) See judgments of 26 October 2017, I (C‑195/16, EU:C:2017:815, paragraph 57), and of 29 April 2021, Stadt Pforzheim (Information on driving licence) (C‑56/20

EU:C:2021:333

See judgments of 15 July 2010, Bâtiments et Ponts Construction and WISAG Produktionsservice (C‑74/09, EU:C:2010:431, paragraph 54), and of 18 June 2019, Austria v Germany (C‑591/17, EU:C:2019:504, paragraph 164), concerning restrictions on fundamental freedoms linked to the levying of a charge and to the imposition of additional/excessive administrative costs.

See, in that regard, point 30 of this Opinion and the case-law cited.

See, to that effect, Szydło, M., ‘EU legislation on driving licences: does it accelerate or slow down the free movement of persons?’, German Law Journal, Vol. 13, No 3, 2012, p. 365.

The Commission referred specifically to Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC (OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4). That directive, which was in force until 11 January 2023, was repealed and replaced by Directive (EU) 2022/2561 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers (OJ 2022 L 330, p. 46).

See point 75 et seq. of this Opinion.

See point 53 et seq. of this Opinion.