This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/031/30
Case C-506/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 7 December 2004, in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
Case C-506/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 7 December 2004, in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
Case C-506/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 7 December 2004, in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
OB C 31, 5.2.2005, p. 15–15
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.2.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 31/15 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 7 December 2004, in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
(Case C-506/04)
(2005/C 31/30)
Language of the case: French
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour administrative (Higher Administrative Court) Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of 7 December 2004 received at the Court Registry on 9 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg on the following questions:
|
1. |
Should Article 9 of Directive 98/5 (1) to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained be interpreted as precluding appeal proceedings as provided for under the Law of 10 August 1991, as amended by the Law of 13 November 2002? |
|
2. |
More particularly, do appeal bodies such as the Conseil disciplinaire et administratif and the Conseil disciplinaire et administratif d'appel constitute ‘a remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with domestic law’ within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 98/5 and should Article 9 be interpreted as precluding a remedy which requires referral to one or more bodies of this nature before it becomes possible to refer a matter on a question of law to a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 9? |
and subject to a later ruling on the jurisdiction of the administrative courts and the admissibility of the action, the procedural and substantive pleas of the parties remaining the same, on the following questions:
|
3. |
Are the competent authorities of a Member State authorised to subject the right of a lawyer of a Member State to practise on a permanent basis the profession of lawyer under his home-country professional title in the areas of activity specified in Article 5 of Directive 98/5/EC to a requirement of proficiency in the languages of that Member State? |
|
4. |
In particular, may the competent authorities make the right to practise the profession subject to the condition that the lawyer sit an oral examination in all (or more than one) of the three main languages of the host Member State for the purpose of allowing the competent authorities to verify whether the lawyer is proficient in the three languages, and if so, what procedural guarantees, if any, are required? |
(1) Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36).