EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61996CJ0108

Summary of the Judgment

Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of establishment Treaty provisions Scope Company belonging to a group of companies established in various Member States Included

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

2. Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of establishment National authorities reserving the performance of certain optical examinations to professionals holding specific qualifications Justification Protection of public health Whether permissible Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

Summary

1. The legal position of a company belonging to a group of companies established in various Member States which markets products and services in the optics sector comes, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of a company established in another Member State, within the scope of Community law pursuant to the provisions of Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).

( see para. 16 )

2. As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that, within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the objective examination of a client's eyesight, that is to say, an examination which does not use a method under which the client alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are not qualified medical doctors. The choice of a Member State to reserve to such professionals the right to carry out objective eyesight examinations on their patients using sophisticated instruments that make it possible to assess internal eye pressure, determine the field of vision or analyse the condition of the retina, may be regarded as an appropriate means by which to ensure attainment of a high level of health protection.

However, the resulting prohibition of certain optical examinations by opticians who are not qualified medical doctors, which applies irrespective of the nationality and Member State of establishment of those to whom it is addressed, must be necessary and proportionate to secure that objective. In this connection, the assessment of the risks to public health is liable to change with the passage of time, particularly as a result of technical and scientific progress.

It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establishment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.

( see paras 27, 30 to 31, 35 to 38 and operative part )

Top