Facts
- Dr Thieffry, a Belgian national, obtained a Belgian doctorate in law.
- He moved to France, completed the required training, and earned the French certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat, authorising practice as an avocat in France.
- Returning to Belgium, he applied for admission to the Brussels bar, relying on both his Belgian doctorate and the French certificate.
- The Brussels bar council refused, asserting that the French qualification lacked certain Belgian vocational elements.
- Dr Thieffry invoked Article 52 EEC (now Article 49 TFEU), claiming the refusal hindered his freedom of establishment.
- A Belgian court referred a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of such refusal with Treaty obligations in the absence of harmonising directives.
Issues
- Whether a Member State may deny admission to its legal profession because a foreign qualification differs formally, despite equivalent knowledge and skills.
- Whether an outright refusal without substantive assessment constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Article 52 EEC.
- Whether any such restriction can be justified by legitimate public-interest objectives linked to professional standards or consumer protection.
Decision
- Regulation of professions remains a national competence, but national rules must respect Treaty freedoms.
- Belgian authorities had to compare the substantive content of Dr Thieffry’s training rather than rely on formal differences such as course length or institutional setting.
- The French certificate demonstrated professional abilities comparable to those required of Belgian avocats; the refusal therefore created an unjustified obstacle to establishment.
- Article 52 has direct effect and can be relied upon before national courts even in the absence of secondary legislation.
- Legitimate objectives (e.g., proper administration of justice) may justify proportionate measures such as aptitude tests or adaptation periods, but not a blanket rejection.
- Belgium breached its obligations; the referring court had to disapply the impugned decision.
Legal Principles
- Mutual recognition: a qualification conferring the right to practise in one Member State must be acknowledged by others when the training is substantively comparable.
- Substantive assessment: authorities must evaluate curriculum, examinations, and professional competencies, not merely formal aspects of diplomas.
- Proportionality: measures hindering establishment must be suitable and no more restrictive than necessary; automatic exclusion is excessive.
- Direct effect: primary Treaty provisions create enforceable individual rights independent of harmonising directives.
- Limited discretion: Member States may impose compensatory mechanisms to cover identified gaps but cannot erect inflexible barriers.
Conclusion
The Court established that freedom of establishment entails a duty of mutual recognition for equivalent professional qualifications. Belgium’s blanket refusal, without individualised appraisal or proportionate compensatory measures, violated Article 52 EEC. The judgment laid foundational principles later codified in secondary legislation on mutual recognition across the European Union.