Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):
61986J0222
Název:
Title:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 15 OCTOBER 1987. UNION NATIONALE DES ENTRAINEURS ET CADRES TECHNIQUES PROFESSIONNELS DU FOOTBALL (UNECTEF) V GEORGES HEYLENS AND OTHERS. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE, LILLE. FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS - EQUIVALENCE OF DIPLOMAS - SPORTS TRAINER. CASE 222/86.
Publikace:
Publication:
REPORTS OF CASES 1987 PAGES 4097
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords
FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:
157E048
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    [119] Watson Case 118/75 Watson and Belmann [1976] ECR 1185
    · [379] Johnston Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651
Plný text:
Fulltext:
Ano

Fakta:
Mr Heylens is a Belgian national and the holder of a Belgian football-trainer’s diploma and was engaged by the Lille Olympic Sporting Club as trainer of the club’s professional football team. An application for recognition of the equivalence of the Belgian diploma was rejected by decision of the competent member of the Government, which referred, by way of statement of reasons, to an adverse opinion of the special committee, which itself contained no statement of reasons. Since Mr Heylens continued to practise as a football trainer, the Union nationale des entraîneuers et cadres techniques professionels du football (Unectef, the Frenn football trainers’ union) summoned him and the directors of the football club which had engaged him before the tribunal de grande instance (Regional Court) Lille.
The tribunal de grande instance stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court the question - as reworded by the Court - whether, where in a Member State access to an occupation as an employed person is dependent upon the possession of a national diploma or a foreign diploma recognized as equivalent thereto, the principle of free movement of workers laid down in Article 48 of the Treaty requires that it must be possible for the decision refusing to recognize the equivalence of a diploma granted to a worker who is a national of another Member State by that Member State to be made the subject of judicial proceedings, and that the decision must state the reasons on which it is based.


Názor soudu a komentář:
At the material time, no Community measures on the harmonization of access to a particular occupation or on the recognition of foreign diplomas existed. In the absence of harmonization of the conditions of access to a particular occupation, the Member States are, in principle, entitled to lay down the knowledge of qualifications needed in order to pursue it and to require the production of a diploma certifying that the holder has the relevant knowledge and qualifications.
In regard of the fundamental importance of the freedom of movement and the Member States’ obligation to ensure its implementation as expressed in Articles 2, 3(c), 5 and 6 Formerly Article 7 EEC Treaty.
EC Treaty (cf. [119] Watson), the Court however rules that the Member States are under an obligation to balance the conflicting interests: “Since it has to reconcile the requirement as to the qualifications necessary in order to pursue a particular occupation with the requirement of the free movement of workers, the procedure for the recognition of equivalence must enable the national authorities to assure themselves on an objective basis, that the foreign diploma certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those certified by the national diploma. That assessment of the equivalence of the foreign diploma must be effected exclusively in the light of the level of knowledge and qualifications which its holder can be assumed to possess in the light of that diploma, having regard to the nature and duration of the studies and practical training which the diploma certifies that he has carried out.
With regard to the judicial review of such examination of the equivalence of diplomas awarded in other Member States, the Court rules that the Member States have to provide for “a remedy of a judicial nature”. The Court bases this ruling on two grounds. Firstly, it finds that such judicial remedy is necessary in view of the fact that free access to employment is a fundamental right which the Treaty confers individually on each worker. Secondly, the Court states that the requirement of effective judicial control “reflects a general principle of Community law which underlies the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (see also [379] Johnston).
Such effective judicial control requires that the final decision refusing to recognize the equivalence must state the reasons on which the decision is based so as to enable the worker concerned to make an assessment whether to apply for judicial control in full knowledge of the facts. Secondly, the worker must have access to the judicial system in order to obtain a review of the decision.


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE LAWFUL REQUIREMENT WHEREBY, IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES, ADMISSION TO CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS IS SUBJECTED TO THE POSSESSION OF DIPLOMAS CONSTITUTES A RESTRICTION ON THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT GUARANTEED BY THE TREATY THE ABOLITION OF WHICH IS TO BE MADE EASIER BY DIRECTIVES FOR THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMAS, CERTIFICATES AND OTHER EVIDENCE OF FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS. IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY, THE FACT THAT SUCH DIRECTIVES HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADOPTED DOES NOT ENTITLE A MEMBER STATE TO DENY THE PRACTICAL BENEFIT OF THAT FREEDOM TO A PERSON SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW WHEN THAT FREEDOM CAN BE ENSURED IN THAT MEMBER STATE, IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER ITS LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR EQUIVALENT FOREIGN DIPLOMAS TO BE RECOGNIZED. SINCE IT HAS TO RECONCILE THE REQUIREMENT AS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A PARTICULAR OCCUPATION WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS, THE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF EQUI
VALENCE MUST ENABLE THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO ASSURE THEMSELVES, ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS, THAT THE FOREIGN DIPLOMA CERTIFIES THAT ITS HOLDER HAS KNOWLEDGE AND QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE, IF NOT IDENTICAL, AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THOSE CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL DIPLOMA. THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF THE FOREIGN DIPLOMA MUST BE EFFECTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ITS HOLDER CAN BE ASSUMED TO POSSESS IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DIPLOMA, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND DURATION OF THE STUDIES AND PRACTICAL TRAINING WHICH THE DIPLOMA CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS CARRIED OUT.

2. SINCE FREE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WHICH THE TREATY CONFERS INDIVIDUALLY ON EACH MIGRANT WORKER IN THE COMMUNITY, THE EXISTENCE OF A REMEDY OF A JUDICIAL NATURE AGAINST ANY DECISION OF A NATIONAL AUTHORITY REFUSING THE BENEFIT OF THAT RIGHT IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO SECURE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR HIS RIGHT. THAT REQUIREMENT REFLECTS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH STEMS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS COMMON TO THE MEMBER STATES AND HAS BEEN ENSHRINED IN ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

3. WHERE IN A MEMBER STATE ACCESS TO AN OCCUPATION AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON IS DEPENDENT UPON THE POSSESSION OF A NATIONAL DIPLOMA OR A FOREIGN DIPLOMA RECOGNIZED AS EQUIVALENT THERETO, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY REQUIRES THAT IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR A DECISION REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE EQUIVALENCE OF A DIPLOMA GRANTED TO A WORKER WHO IS A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THAT MEMBER STATE TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH ITS LEGALITY UNDER COMMUNITY LAW CAN BE REVIEWED, AND FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED TO ASCERTAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):




F. Schockweiler

soudce zpravodaj



_____________________________________________________________________________