Explore the pivotal Reyners v Belgium [1974] case summary, a cornerstone in EU law for law students studying the freedom of establishment and its implications for professionals across member states.

  • In Case 2/74 Reyners [1974], the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided that lawyers, as a profession (generally), are not exempt from the right to establishment, contained in Article 51 Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
  • The Article 51 exemption will only apply to a lawyer if it involves an individual carrying out ‘official authority’, which is unable to be separated from the scope of the profession as a whole.

Facts of the Case Case 2/74 Reyners

  • The applicant was not allowed, because of Belgian law, to be a lawyer in Belgium, even though he was qualified because he was Dutch. He sought to challenge this on the basis that the Belgian law preventing him from becoming a lawyer in Belgium was inconsistent with Article 49 TFEU, the freedom of establishment.
  • The Belgian government argued that the applicant was exempt from protection from Article 49 TFEU because the profession of lawyers, as a whole, falls under Article 51 TFEU and thus could not exercise the freedom of establishment. For reference, Article 51 states that “activities which in that state are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority” are exempt from Article 49. The Belgian government stated that lawyers are an “indispensable auxiliary for the administration of justice”.

Issues in Case 2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR 631

  • The principal issue for the CJEU was whether lawyers as a whole, were indeed exempt under Article 51 from the freedom of establishment.

The CJEU Held

  • The exemption in Article 51 TFEU fid not apply to the legal profession in its entirety, and as such, the Belgian law was indeed incompatible with Community law. The CJEU did however say that where a lawyer would have to exercise official authority, Article 51 does preclude him from doing so in a Member State other than his own.

The CJEU Specifically Stated

  • [54] “it is therefore right to reply to the question raised that the exception to freedom of establishment provided for by the first paragraph of Article 51 must be restricted to those of the activities referred to in [Article 52] which in themselves involve a direct and specific connection with the exercise of an official authority” [655]
  • [55] “in any case it is not possible to give this description, in the context of a profession such as that of an ‘advocat’, to activities such as consultation and legal assistance or the representation and defence of parties in court, even if the performance of these activities is compulsory or there is a legal monopoly in respect of it” [656].

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The Reyners v Belgium [1974] case is seminal in the context of EU law, particularly regarding the freedom of establishment and the right of nationals of a member state to pursue activities as self-employed persons in another member state under the same conditions as nationals of that state. Here are key areas where this case has had a significant impact:

  • Establishment of Freedom of Establishment Principles: Reyners was instrumental in defining the scope of Article 49 of the TFEU, which guarantees the freedom of establishment. The judgment clarified that the freedom of establishment applies to regulated professions, such as law, which was a departure from previous restrictions that limited mobility within professional services. This principle was expanded upon in Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (C-55/94), where the conditions under which restrictions on freedom of establishment might be justified were further clarified. Additionally, Commission v Italy (C-3/88) from the attached file leveraged the Reyners precedent to challenge national regulations that discriminated against lawyers from other EU countries.
  • Impact on National Regulations Governing Professional Qualifications: Following Reyners, there was a significant push towards harmonizing regulations governing professional qualifications across the EU to ensure that such regulations did not constitute a barrier to the free movement of professionals. This led to directives such as the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC), which aimed to simplify the recognition of professional qualifications across member states. Cases such as Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg (C-340/89) further developed these ideas by insisting on mutual recognition of qualifications where possible.
  • Jurisprudential Legacy in Subsequent CJEU Decisions: The doctrines established in Reyners have been applied extensively in subsequent CJEU decisions. For instance, in Knoors v Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (C-115/78), the court applied the principles of freedom of establishment to the trade sector, illustrating the broad applicability of the Reyners decision across different economic activities. Furthermore, Dentist Commission v Belgium (C-2/74) from the attached file highlights ongoing issues with national restrictions on professional activities, emphasizing the need for continual assessment of national regulations against EU freedoms.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

How has the implementation of the freedom of establishment affected the legal profession in newer EU member states post-Reyners?

Since the Reyners ruling, the implementation of the freedom of establishment has significantly affected the legal profession across newer EU member states by facilitating greater mobility for legal professionals. For instance, after joining the EU, countries like Poland and Bulgaria had to align their regulations concerning the legal profession with EU standards. This alignment included recognizing qualifications from other member states, thereby broadening the employment opportunities for lawyers across the EU. This is underpinned by Directive 98/5/EC, which allows lawyers to practice permanently in a Member State other than the one where their qualifications were obtained. Additionally, in cases such as Commission v Hungary (C-286/12) from the attached file, the CJEU has continued to enforce compliance with EU laws on freedom of establishment, ensuring that national laws do not unjustifiably restrict the practice of law by lawyers from other member states.

What are the current challenges in harmonizing professional qualifications across the EU following the principles set out in Reyners?

The harmonization of professional qualifications across the EU, despite the framework set by Reyners, faces several challenges. One significant challenge is the diversity in education and training standards across member states, which complicates the recognition of qualifications. The updated Professional Qualifications Directive (2013/55/EU) seeks to address these issues by introducing the European Professional Card and alert mechanism to facilitate easier and quicker recognition. However, discrepancies in how regulations are implemented locally can still pose barriers. For example, the case Toma and Biroul Executorilor Judecatoresti (C-205/15) from the attached file discusses the recognition of judicial executor qualifications, highlighting ongoing issues in mutual recognition practices.

Are there examples of recent cases where the CJEU has had to interpret the scope of the freedom of establishment in contexts other than the legal profession?

Yes, the CJEU has recently addressed the scope of the freedom of establishment in various other contexts. For instance, in the Aspiro SA case (C-40/17), the Court examined the freedom of establishment in relation to outsourcing services, establishing that restrictions on cross-border service provision need to be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Another example is Kubicka (C-218/16) from the attached file, which dealt with the rights of notaries, a regulated profession, to establish themselves in different member states. These cases demonstrate the broad applicability of the freedom of establishment beyond the legal profession, affecting sectors such as healthcare, accounting, and real estate, ensuring that professionals in these fields can also benefit from the single market provisions.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.