Member States

No. 2 of the directive preceding considerations). In literature’s contribution made by the applicant in terms – which, as I said, already the Administrative Court has behaved – the legal opinion that the ECJ to 28 para 4 FeV No.3 is a.F. outdated, is inferred from this again alone makes that the directive 2006/126/EC now basically the non-recognition of the licence acquired abroad (see above) “.” “As far as is found there in addition that the directive this just for such cases” – driving exhibitions are meant after the expiry of the lock-up period – see above, this is simply placed in the room. Also that “Administrative Court Kassel directs his decision cited by the defendant from 22 June 2009-2 L 476/09 – the accordance of 28 para 4 sentence 1 No. 3 FeV with European law exclusively from the unrestricted validity” of in article 11 para 4 second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC regulated obligation of Member States to the non-recognition of forth, without having to make any further comments. “Finally the Senate not already has in its judgment cited by the respondent by July 31 2009-10 A 10060/09.OVG – the exception contained in 28 para 4 No.

3 FeV seen… as European law compliant”. He has instead merely determined that on January 19th, 2009 in force regulation of 11 4 2nd subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC, which come only for the standing in speech-recognition considering not on prior to the entry into force be applied granted licences – as in the case where strong -. From the foregoing, it must be at the arrangements made by the Administrative Court in the ways of the interim remain. The decision as to costs is vwgo provides that based on article 154, paragraph 2. The threshold setting for the appeal is based on sections 53 para 2 No. 2, 52 para 1 and 2, 47 of the court fees Act – GKG – i.V.m paragraphs 1.5 and 46 of the value catalog for the administrative jurisdiction (NVwZ 2004, 1327). The decision is irrevocable pursuant to 152 paragraph 1 vwgo provides that.