EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document E2014J0017
Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-17/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)
Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-17/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)
Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-17/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)
OJ C 350, 22.10.2015, p. 5–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.10.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 350/5 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 31 March 2015
in Case E-17/14
EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)
(2015/C 350/08)
In Case E-17/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force national rules, such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of that Article, including the applicability of Article 63(2) of the Health Act in those respects, which require an authorised ‘Dentist’ to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:
|
1. |
Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’). |
|
2. |
Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings. |