EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/155/19
Case C-193/05: Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Case C-193/05: Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Case C-193/05: Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
JO C 155, 25.6.2005, p. 10–10
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.6.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/10 |
Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-193/05)
(2005/C 155/19)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:
|
(1) |
declare that, by maintaining, for the purpose of establishing oneself under the home-country professional title, language knowledge requirements, a prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service and the obligation to reproduce each year the certificate from the home Member State, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under 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, (1) in particular Articles 2, 3 and 5 thereof; |
|
(2) |
order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The introduction of language testing as a prerequisite for a European lawyer to be entered in the register of the Ordre des avocats is contrary to the general objective of the Directive, which is to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer in a Member State other than that in which the professional qualification was obtained and infringes inter alia Article 3(2) of that directive, under which the host Member State is to the register the lawyer ‘upon presentation of a certificate attesting to his registration with the competent authority in the home Member State’.
The prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service is contrary to Article 5(1), under which a European lawyer ‘carries on the same professional activities as a lawyer practising under the relevant professional title used in the host Member State’.
In its response to the reasoned opinion, the Luxembourg Government states that it has taken due note of the Commission's argument that the requirement to reproduce each year the certificate from the home Member State constitutes an unjustified administrative burden having regard to the provisions of the Directive.
The Commission has found, however, that, contrary to the terms of the Directive, for the reasons stated in the reasoned opinion, at the present time that requirement remains in the text of the Law of 13 November 2002, which implements Directive 98/5 in Luxembourg law.
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, of 14.03.1998, p. 36.