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):		61992J0019

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 31 MARCH 1993. DIETER KRAUS V LAND BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: VERWALTUNGSGERICHT STUTTGART - GERMANY. USE OF A POSTGRADUATE UNIVERSITY DEGREE - NATIONAL LEGISLATION MAKING THE USE BY NATIONALS OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE OR DIPLOMA OBTAINED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE SUBJECT TO PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. CASE C-19/92.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1993 PAGES I-1663

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E048;157E052

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		[410] Heylens Case 222/86 UNECTEF v Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097 · [565] Surinder Singh Case C-370/90 The Queen, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Departement v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh [1992] ECR I-4265 · [119] Watson Case 118/75 Watson and Belmann [1976] ECR 1185 · [515] Vllassopoulou Case 340/89 Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz- Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden Württemberg [1991] ECR I-2357 · [176] Auer Case 136/78 Ministčre Public v Auer [1979] ECR 437 · [175] Knoors Case 115/78 Knoors v Staatssecretaris voor Economische Zaken [1979] ECR 399 · Bouchoucha Case 61/89 Bouchoucha [1990] ECR I-3551


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Dieter Kraus studied law in the Federal Republic of Germany and in 1986 passed the first State examination in law. In 1988 he obtained the university degree of “Master of Laws (LL.M.)” following a one-year postgraduate study at the University of Edingborough (United Kingdom). When Mr Kraus applied with the competent ministry for a recognition of his title, he was requested,
inter alia,
to make a formal application and to pay an administrative fee of DM 130. Those requirements follow from the German law relating to the use of academic titles. The purpose of this law is to protect the public against misleading use of academic titles awarded outside the territory of Germany. Persons holding an academic degree awarded by a German higher education establishment may use those titles without further authorization. In contrast, persons who have obtained an academic title in a foreign establishment of higher education must, in order to be able to use it in the Federal Republic of Germany, apply for authorization. Use of a foreign academic title without prior authorization constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or by a fine.
Considering that the requirements of a formal notice constituted an obstacle to the free movement of persons and also discrimination, both prohibited by the EEC Treaty, since no such authorization was required for the use of a diploma awarded by a German establishment, Mr Kraus initiated proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Stuttgart. The Verwaltungsgericht stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court of Justice the question whether the authorization requirement was compatible with Article 48 of the Treaty.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court first confirms that the present case falls within the scope of the Treaty; secondly it examines whether it is governed by any special provisions of Community law or by Article 48 (and Article 52) of the Treaty. Finally, it scrutinizes the compatibility of the authorization requirement with Article 48 (and Article 52) of the Treaty.
The provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom of movement do not apply to situations which are “purely internal to a Member State”. However, the Court had already held in prior rulings ( [175]
Knoors; Bouchoucha;
but see also [176]
Auer
) relating to Article 52 that this provision also covers nationals of a given Member State in their relation to that Member State when they are “in a situation which may be assimilated to that of any other person enjoying the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty”. That is, in particular, the case if they have lawfully resided in another Member State and there acquired a vocational qualification. The Court extends this ruling with regard to Article 48, holding that “freedom of movement for workers and the right of establishment … (are) fundamental rights in the Community system, and would not be fully realized if the Member States were able to refuse to grant the benefit of the provisions of Community law to those of their nationals who had taken advantage of its provisions to acquire vocational qualifications in a Member State other than that of which they were nationals”. The degree in question, although it does not constitute a prerequisite for access to a profession, is nonetheless a vocational qualification in this sense in so far as it may enhance the employment opportunities of the holder.
The specific legislation enacted by the Community did not apply to the present case. Council Directive 89/48/EEC
Of 21 December 1988, relating to a general system of recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
does not cover the case because it applies only to academic titles awarded on completion of at least three years’ duration. Council Directive 92/51/EEC
on a second general system for recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).
on the other hand was adopted after the occurrence of the circumstance giving rise to the main proceedings and the period prescribed for its transposition into national law had not yet expired. In the absence of harmonization of the issue, the Member States remain, in principle, competent to lay down the detailed rules governing the use of such a title on their territory. However, such rules “may not constitute an obstacle to the effective exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 48 and 52 of the Treaty” ( [410]
Heylens
). The compatibility of the German law in question with said Articles therefore had to be examined.
The Court first stresses the fundamental importance of Articles 48 and 52, both of which are intended to “implement the fundamental principle contained in Article 3c of the Treaty” ( [410]
Heylens;
[119]
Watson;
[565]
Surinder Singh
). These Articles “lay down a precise obligation of result”, the performance of which “was to be facilitated but not to be made dependent upon the implementation of Community measures”. Under Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are obliged to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations arising out of Articles 48 and 52 together with Article 3c of the Treaty. Upon these considerations, the Court - imposing more restrictive standards than the requirement of non-discrimination established in
Bouchoucha
- rules that Articles 48 and 52 preclude any measure which, even though applicable without regard to nationality, are “liable to hamper the exercise of Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty”. Measures which have such effect can only be justified if they (1) pursue a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and they are justified by pressing reasons of public interest and (2) provided that they are necessary and appropriate (proportional) for the objective pursued.
The Court examines the German law in question under these principles. It is satisfied that the objective of preventing abuse of foreign titles is a legitimate interest which may justify the authorization requirement. It leaves the question of whether the principle of proportionality has been observed for the national court to determine and only gives some additional guidelines in that regard: Firstly, the authorization procedure must be intended solely to verify whether the postgraduate academic title was properly awarded. Secondly, the authorization procedure must be easy of access to interested parties and should not depend on payment of excessive administration fees. Thirdly, the applicants are to be afforded effective protection of their fundamental rights; they must, in particular, be able to obtain judicial review of the decision and for that purpose be provided with the reasons for the administrative decision (see [410]
Heylen
; [515]
Vlassopoulou
). Finally, the penalties imposed have to be proportional to the offence committed.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. LA SITUATION DU RESSORTISSANT COMMUNAUTAIRE TITULAIRE D' UN DIPLžME UNIVERSITAIRE DE TROISIŐME CYCLE QUI, DÉLIVRÉ DANS UN AUTRE ETAT MEMBRE, FACILITE L' ACCŐS ů UNE PROFESSION OU, ů TOUT LE MOINS, L' EXERCICE D' UNE ACTIVITÉ ÉCONOMIQUE EST RÉGIE PAR LE DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE, MëME EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RAPPORTS DE CE RESSORTISSANT ů L' ÉGARD DE L' ETAT MEMBRE DONT IL EST LE NATIONAL. EN EFFET, LA LIBRE CIRCULATION DES TRAVAILLEURS ET LE DROIT D' ÉTABLISSEMENT, GARANTIS PAR LES ARTICLES 48 ET 52 DU TRAITÉ, CONSTITUENT DES LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES DANS LE SYSTŐME DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ, QUI NE SERAIENT PAS PLEINEMENT RÉALISÉES SI LES ETATS MEMBRES POUVAIENT REFUSER LE BÉNÉFICE DES DISPOSITIONS DU DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE ů CEUX DE LEURS RESSORTISSANTS QUI ONT FAIT USAGE DES FACILITÉS PRÉVUES PAR CE DROIT ET QUI ONT ACQUIS, ů LA FAVEUR DE CELLES-CI, DES QUALIFICATIONS PROFESSIONNELLES DANS UN PAYS MEMBRE AUTRE QUE CELUI DONT ILS POSSŐDENT LA NATIONALITÉ.

2. COMPTE TENU DE CE QUE LA NÉCESSITÉ DE PROTÉGER UN PUBLIC NON NÉCESSAIREMENT AVERTI CONTRE L' UTILISATION ABUSIVE DE TITRES UNIVERSITAIRES QUI NE SONT PAS DÉLIVRÉS CONFORMÉMENT AUX NORMES PRÉVUES ů CETTE FIN DANS LE PAYS OŚ LE TITULAIRE DU DIPLžME ENTEND S' EN PRÉVALOIR CONSTITUE UN INTÉRëT LÉGITIME DE NATURE ů JUSTIFIER UNE RESTRICTION, DE LA PART DE L' ETAT MEMBRE EN CAUSE, DES LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES GARANTIES PAR LE TRAITÉ, DONT A FAIT USAGE L' UN DE SES RESSORTISSANTS EN SE RENDANT DANS UN AUTRE ETAT MEMBRE POUR Y COMPLÉTER SA FORMATION, ET EN L' ABSENCE D' HARMONISATION DES CONDITIONS DANS LESQUELLES UN TITULAIRE D' UN DIPLžME UNIVERSITAIRE DE TROISIŐME CYCLE EST HABILITÉ ů S' EN PRÉVALOIR DANS LES ETATS MEMBRES AUTRES QUE CELUI OŚ LE TITRE A ÉTÉ DÉLIVRÉ, LES ARTICLES 48 ET 52 DU TRAITÉ DOIVENT ëTRE INTERPRÉTÉS EN CE SENS QU' ILS NE S' OPPOSENT PAS ů CE QU' UN ETAT MEMBRE INTERDISE ů UN DE SES PROPRES RESSORTISSANTS, TITULAIRE D' UN DIPLžME UNIVERSITAIRE DE TROISIŐME CYCLE DÉLIVRÉ DANS UN AUTRE ETAT ME
MBRE, D' UTILISER CE TITRE SUR SON TERRITOIRE SANS AVOIR OBTENU UNE AUTORISATION ADMINISTRATIVE. LA PROCÉDURE ADMINISTRATIVE ů LAQUELLE L' INTÉRESSÉ DOIT SE SOUMETTRE ů CETTE FIN DOIT AVOIR POUR SEUL BUT DE VÉRIFIER SI LE TITRE UNIVERSITAIRE DE TROISIŐME CYCLE A ÉTÉ RÉGULIŐREMENT DÉLIVRÉ, ELLE DOIT ëTRE FACILEMENT ACCESSIBLE ET NE PAS DÉPENDRE DU PAIEMENT DE TAXES ADMINISTRATIVES EXCESSIVES; TOUTE DÉCISION DE REFUS D' AUTORISATION DOIT ëTRE SUSCEPTIBLE D' UN RECOURS DE NATURE JURIDICTIONNELLE, L' INTÉRESSÉ DOIT POUVOIR OBTENIR CONNAISSANCE DES MOTIFS QUI SONT ů LA BASE DE CETTE DÉCISION ET LES SANCTIONS PRÉVUES EN CAS DE NON-RESPECT DE LA PROCÉDURE D' AUTORISATION NE DOIVENT PAS ëTRE DISPROPORTIONNÉES PAR RAPPORT ů LA GRAVITÉ DE L' INFRACTION.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):