–

IL, by M. Hristov, advokat,

–

the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova, S. Ruseva and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents,

–

the European Commission, by P. Messina, N. Nikolova and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).

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, when stopped for a roadside check, he was unable to present a valid certificate of psychological fitness, as required by national law.

3

Recitals 8 and 9 of Directive 2006/126 state:

4

Article 1(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall introduce a national driving licence based on the Community model set out in Annex I, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. The emblem on page 1 of the Community model driving licences shall contain the distinguishing sign of the Member State issuing the licence.’

5

Under Article 2(1) of that directive:

‘Driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised.’

6

Article 4(1) of that directive reads as follows:

‘The driving licence provided for in Article 1 shall authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined hereafter. It may be issued from the minimum age indicated for each category. …’

7

Article 7 of Directive 2006/126, entitled ‘Issue, validity and renewal’, provides:

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

…

2. …

…

3.   The renewal of driving licences when their administrative validity expires shall be subject to:

…

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.

…’

8

Annex II, Title I of that directive, entitled ‘Minimum requirements for driving tests’, provides, in point 9 thereof:

…’

9

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

‘Definitions

…

…

Medical examinations

…

…

Mental disorders

Group 1:

Group 2:

…’

10

Under Paragraph 51(4) of the Zakon za balgarskite lichni dokumenti (Law on Bulgarian identity documents):

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

11

Paragraph 8(1), (2) and (4) of the Naredba no 36 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 conducting psychological examinations of driving licence applicants, drivers and chairs of driving examination boards and for the issue of registration certificates for conducting psychological examinations) of 15 May 2006 (‘Regulation No 36/2006’), reads as follows:

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

2.   The certificate of psychological fitness shall apply for a period of three years from the date of issue.

…

4.   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.’

12

Paragraph 13(1) of the Naredba no 1-157 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 provides:

‘A driving licence shall be first issued on the basis of an original record of having successfully passed the 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:

1.   an application form together with appendices in accordance with the Pravilnik za izdavane na balgarskite lichni dokumenti [(Rules on the issue of Bulgarian identity documents)];

…

3.   a document issued by a general practitioner, by the district medical experts’ panels for transport (TOLEK) or by the central medical experts’ panel for transport (TTSLEK) certifying the physical fitness of the driver/driving licence applicant;

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 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;

…’

13

Under Paragraph 15(2) of Regulation No 1-157 of 1 October 2002:

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

14

In accordance with Paragraph 178c(5) of the Zakon za dvizhenieto po patishtata (Law on Road Traffic), any person who provides taxi services, owns account transport operations or 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 Bulgarian leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 255).

15

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.

16

IL holds a driving licence which is valid, in particular, for motor vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, D1E and TCT. His driving licence is valid from 28 November 2019 to 28 November 2024.

17

On 4 August 2021, the inspection authorities carried out checks as IL was driving a vehicle combining a tractor and an attached semi-trailer, providing public goods transport services. Those checks revealed that he was unable to produce a valid certificate of psychological fitness. His last certificate of psychological fitness had been issued to him on 7 October 2017 and had been valid until 7 October 2020.

18

The inspection authorities issued a notice establishing an administrative offence for infringement of Paragraph 8(1) of Regulation No 36/2006 on the ground that IL had not presented a valid certificate of psychological fitness. On the basis of Paragraph 178c(5) of the Law on Road Traffic, the Director of the Regional Motor Vehicle Administration Directorate, Pleven, adopted a decision imposing a fine of BGN 500 (approximately EUR 255) on IL for the established infringement of Paragraph 8(1) of Regulation No 36/2006.

19

IL challenged that fine before the Rayonen sad Sevlievo (District Court, Sevlievo, Bulgaria), submitting, in essence, that Paragraph 8(1) of Regulation No 36/2006 and the fine referred to in Paragraph 178c(5) of the Law on Road Traffic were contrary to the provisions of Directive 2006/126.

20

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 and upheld, by judgment of 10 December 2021, the decision of 24 August 2021.

21

IL brought an appeal in cassation before the Administrativen sad – Gabrovo (Administrative Court, Gabrovo, Bulgaria), the referring court, which considers that the provisions of Directive 2006/126 are unclear and, in a sense, contradictory.

22

That court observes, first, 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 the medical examinations should coincide with a renewal of driving licences and therefore be determined by the period of validity of the licence. Second, it states that point 4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 permits Member States to provide in national law for medical examinations for drivers in group 2 (categories C, СЕ, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1, 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.

23

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 group 2 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 such fitness, as that was established at the time the driving licence was issued or renewed.

24

By order of 27 May 2022, registered at the Court Registry on 30 May 2022, the referring court decided to submit an addendum to its request for a preliminary ruling, in which it states that another question arising before it is whether the penalty provided for by the Bulgarian legislation in respect of a driver who has a valid driving licence for a motor vehicle of categories C, CE, C1, 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 for motor vehicles 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.

25

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:

26

By its questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring the persons who are seeking to pursue the profession of driver of vehicles used for the transport of persons or goods and who hold a driving licence for vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E, issued in accordance with that directive, their physical and mental fitness for driving having been checked when that driving licence was issued, to hold, in addition to their driving licence, a certificate of psychological fitness, whose period of validity is shorter than that of that licence.

27

In that regard, it must be borne in mind that Directive 2006/126 establishes, as is clear from recital 8 thereof, a minimum degree of harmonisation of the provisions relating to the conditions under which the driving licence provided for in Article 1 may be issued. Those conditions are, in particular, set out in Articles 4 and 7 of that directive and concern, inter alia, the requisite minimum age, fitness to drive, the tests which the applicant must pass and the residency of the applicant in the issuing Member State. That harmonisation of the requirements for obtaining a driving licence aims, in particular, to lay down necessary preconditions for the mutual recognition of such licences and also pursues that directive’s objective of contributing to improving road safety (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2017, I, C‑195/16, EU:C:2017:815, paragraphs 43, 44 and 51).

28

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 minimum standards of physical and mental fitness, in accordance with the provisions of Annexes II and III to that directive. Furthermore, Article 7(3)(a) of that directive requires the renewal of driving licences to be subject to compliance with those minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for holders of driving licences for vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E.

29

Accordingly, it follows from those 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, including persons working as professional drivers, has already been evaluated and certified at the time of issue and renewal of those licences, with a view to addressing, in particular, the imperative of road safety.

30

In that context, it should be observed, in respect of the physical and mental requirements for driving, first, that, in accordance with point 5 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126, a Member State may require, for any issuing of a driving licence or for the subsequent renewal of that licence, a fuller medical examination than those referred to in that annex (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2012, Akyüz, C‑467/10, EU:C:2012:112, paragraph 54).

31

Second, as regards drivers in group 2, namely drivers of vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E, such as IL, point 13.2 of Annex III permits the competent medical authorities of the Member States to give consideration to the additional risks and dangers involved in the driving of vehicles covered by the definition of that group. Thus, when those Member States determine the medical examinations which drivers in group 2 are to undergo, they may introduce more stringent requirements for those drivers than for drivers in group 1, in order to identify any ‘mental disorders’, as covered by point 13.2 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126.

32

Furthermore, it should be observed that Directive 2006/126 specifies, in points 13.1 and 13.2 of Annex III, the mental disorders to be taken into account. Among those mental disorders, point 13.1 refers to ‘severe mental disturbance … due to … trauma …’; the term ‘trauma’ may relate to, in particular, a set of psychological difficulties caused accidentally by an external agent. That provision also refers to ‘personality defects leading to seriously impaired judgment, behaviour or adaptability’.

33

In that regard, the Bulgarian Government states, in its written observations, that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings was intended to establish psychological fitness to drive motor vehicles without the risk of causing traffic accidents, having regard to the psychological qualities which are relevant to the occupation. It states that in that way it is possible to obtain, following the examination of psychological fitness provided for by that legislation, amongst other things, a prognosis of the future conduct of the person concerned on the road and of the risk of causing accidents, based on purely psychological criteria, as opposed to medical criteria.

34

In those circumstances, if the referring court were to confirm that the test of psychological fitness provided for by that legislation differs, in terms of its scope and its objectives, from the examination of mental fitness provided for by Directive 2006/126, a psychological test which is not based on the requirements of that directive and which thus does not constitute a medical examination, within the meaning of Annex III to that directive, cannot be regarded as compliant with EU law. It would undermine the proper functioning of the system established by that directive, which is intended to enable persons fulfilling the conditions it lays down to provide certification of fitness to drive vehicles of the category in question. As is apparent from the observations of the Bulgarian Government, professional drivers must possess a valid driving licence, which presupposes that they meet the standards of physical and mental fitness as laid down by Annex III to Directive 2006/126, as well as the standards relating to skills and behaviour set out in Annex II to that directive. Those standards require an overall assessment of the candidate’s profile having regard, inter alia, to his or her behaviour and ability to drive safely.

35

By contrast, if the referring court were to hold that the test of psychological fitness at issue in the main proceedings is intended to come within the margin of discretion left to the Member States in relation to more stringent medical examinations, referred to in paragraphs 30 and 31 above, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, 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 FEU Treaty. In that regard, 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 (judgment of 7 July 2016, Muladi, C‑447/15, EU:C:2016:533, paragraphs 43 and 44 and the case-law cited).

36

Subject to verifications to be made by the referring court in that regard, it is not apparent from the file available to the Court that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is intended to address the specific additional road safety risks and dangers connected with the mental capacity required of drivers in group 2. It cannot be concluded, at first sight, from the explanation provided by the Bulgarian Government, that the test of psychological fitness at issue in the main proceedings is intended to detect, with greater exactitude or in more depth, potential mental disorders such as those referred to in points 13.1 and 13.2 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126, in that group of drivers, which might compromise road safety. Accordingly, it appears that that legislation goes beyond what is necessary to secure the objective of road safety, and, given that it requires drivers to possess a certificate of psychological fitness, in addition to a valid driving licence, carries a risk of seriously compromising achievement of the result prescribed by Directive 2006/126.

37

In those circumstances, requiring holders of a valid driving licence also to be in possession of such a separate certificate of psychological fitness would constitute an additional and impermissible constraint, since a driving licence issued by a Member State in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/126 must be regarded as constituting proof that, on the day on which that licence was issued, its holder satisfied the conditions of issue laid down by that directive (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 April 2012, Hofmann, C‑419/10, EU:C:2012:240, paragraph 46, and of 29 April 2021, Stadt Karlsruhe (Recognition of a renewed driving licence), C‑47/20, EU:C:2021:332, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited), and thus possesses the necessary evidential value to certify mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle of the relevant category.

38

Although 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, that directive does, however, bring about 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 (see, to that effect, 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, paragraph 42). As the Advocate General observed in point 63 of his Opinion, this means that a driving licence issued in accordance with Directive 2006/126 cannot exist side by side with any other national document fulfilling essentially the same function.

39

Similarly, the Member States do not have power to require, at intervals shorter than the validity period of a driving licence, proof of mental fitness for driving.

40

In the first place, 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 are to have an administrative validity of five years, and Article 7(3) of that directive requires that the renewal of the driving licence be subject to compliance with the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness set out in Annex III to that directive for holders of licences in those categories.

41

In the second place, while it is true, first, 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, 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’ and, second, that the last part of the sentence is missing from the Bulgarian language version, it is possible to conclude, having regard to the various language versions of that provision, as the Advocate General observed in points 49 and 50 of his Opinion, that that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the examination in question must be carried out when the driving licence is renewed.

42

The fact that the Bulgarian and French language versions of point 4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126 do not entirely correspond to the other language versions of Directive 2006/126 cannot result in a different interpretation of that provision.

43

In accordance with 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 (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 1969, Stauder, 29/69, EU:C:1969:57, paragraphs 2 and 3; 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).

44

It is clearly apparent from the other language versions of Directive 2006/126 that the EU legislature intended for the medical examinations to coincide with the renewal of the driving licence, and the provisions in question do not refer to any possibility of the Member States setting shorter intervals between the medical examinations for drivers in group 2. As the referring court has stated, that interpretation is borne out by the fourth sentence of recital 9 of that directive, which 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.

45

Furthermore, while the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Directive 2006/126 permits the Member States, exceptionally, 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, that provision confirms the fact that the medical examinations must coincide with the renewal of the driving licence and, accordingly, that their frequency must be determined by the period of validity of that licence.

46

Lastly, it should also be observed that, as the European Commission has claimed, at the time of the events at issue in the main proceedings, EU law already contained rules in the field of recognition of professional qualifications in order to take account of safety requirements relating to the transport of goods and passengers, namely 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), which did not contain any specific or additional requirement, by comparison with Directive 2006/126, as regards the assessment of the mental fitness of professional drivers.

47

In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring the persons who are seeking to pursue the profession of driver of vehicles used for the transport of persons or goods and who hold a driving licence for vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E, issued in accordance with that directive, their physical and mental fitness for driving having been checked when that driving licence was issued, to hold, in addition to their driving licence, a certificate of psychological fitness, whose period of validity is shorter than that of that licence.

48

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 7(1) and (3) of 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 persons who are seeking to pursue the profession of driver of vehicles used for the transport of persons or goods and who hold a driving licence for vehicles in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E, issued in accordance with that directive, their physical and mental fitness for driving having been checked when that driving licence was issued, to hold, in addition to their driving licence, a certificate of psychological fitness, whose period of validity is shorter than that of that licence.