This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0099
Case C-99/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 4 — Practice of the legal profession — Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) — Router for RPVA access — Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State — Discriminatory measure)
Case C-99/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 4 — Practice of the legal profession — Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) — Router for RPVA access — Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State — Discriminatory measure)
Case C-99/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 4 — Practice of the legal profession — Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) — Router for RPVA access — Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State — Discriminatory measure)
IO C 239, 24.7.2017, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.7.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 239/12 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
(Case C-99/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 4 - Practice of the legal profession - Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) - Router for RPVA access - Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State - Discriminatory measure))
(2017/C 239/16)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue
Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
Intervening party: Ministère public
Operative part of the judgment
The refusal, on the part of the competent authorities of a Member State, to issue a router for access to the private virtual network for lawyers to a lawyer duly registered at a Bar of another Member State, for the sole reason that that lawyer is not registered at a Bar of the first Member State, in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services, in situations where the obligation to work in conjunction with another lawyer is not imposed by law, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 4 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU. It is for the national court to determine whether such a refusal, in the light of the context in which it is put forward, genuinely serves the objectives of consumer protection and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the resulting restrictions do not appear to be disproportionate in regard to those objectives.