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):		61975J0002

	Název: Title:		ECJ Judgement of 21 June 1974 Case 2/75 Jean Reyners versus Belgium Preliminary Ruling (1974) ECR 631

	Publikace: Publication:

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
The Dutch citizen Jean Reyners grew up in Belgium, studied law there and passed all the examinations required. When he applied for admission to the Chamber of Lawyers, his application was refused; the reason given was that according to Belgian Law (with a few irrelevant exeptions) only Belgian nationals may be admitted to become lawyers.
Thereupon Reyners seized the Council of State with legal action against the rules of admission. The court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Art. 177 TEC and submitted the case to the ECJ with request of preliminary ruling on the direct applicability of Art. 52 as well as on the range of application of Art. 55 TEC.

Názor soudu a komentář:
This case was the first occasion for the ECJ to state his position on the direct applicability of Art. 52 TEC. Art. 52 TEC states that Member States have the obligation to reduce restrictions to the free choice of establishment for EC nationals up to the expiration of the period of transition and in this respect to give EC non-nationals the same treatment as EC nationals. The Court deemed this obligation as sufficiently specific and upon expiration of the period of transition it became unconditional, i.e. independent of any further decision of the Member States. Therefore, its direct applicability could be affirmed by the ECJ in permanent jurisdiction

see ECJ judgement of 5 Feburary 1963 (26/62) (van Gend ./. Loos), (1963) ECR 1; ECJ judgement of 16 june 1966 (48/65) (Lütticke), (1966) ECR 27
. During the period of transition, EC directives were to ensure the abolishment of discrimination of foreign nationals as well as the partial harmonization required for an effective exercise of the freedom of establishment as prescribed by Arts. 54 and 57 TEC. By the end of the transition period, however, this had not been fully put in practice. The ECJ clarified that this situation prevailing after the period of transition had expired did not conflict with the direct application of the provision of non-discrimination pursuant to Art. 52 TEC. The measures for harmonization scheduled during the transitional period were only meant to help to reach the goal of liberalization faster, but they were not meant to question the obligation which the Member States had in this respect.
As to the interpretation of Art. 55 TEC, the question arises whether exceptions to the application of Community Law concerning the freedom of establishment mearly pertain to professional activities involving the exercise of public authority, or whether professions related to such activities are concerned in general. The Court opted for the latter, more restrictive position. An exception can only be considered for a profession as a whole when this profession is unavoidably involved in the exercise of public power to such an extent that both sides are inseparable from one another. However, if on the other hand the foreign citizen can be kept clear of activities which depend on direct and specific participation in the exercise of public power, preference must be given to the less restrictive limitation. As a matter of fact, the profession of a lawyer’s does present the opportunity for such separation.
This interpretation is one of numerous decisions made by the ECJ stating that exceptions to the rules on liberalization as well as on harmonization are to be construed narrowly and restrictively.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):