# C_2008017EN.01001301.xml

| 24.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 October 2007

in Case E-1/07: criminal proceedings against A

(Lawyers' freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 7 EEA — Protocol 35 EEA — Principles of primacy and direct effect — Conforming interpretation)

(Lawyers' freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 7 EEA — Protocol 35 EEA — Principles of primacy and direct effect — Conforming interpretation)

(2008/C 17/09)

In Case E-1/07, criminal proceedings against A — request to the Court by Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice), concerning the interpretation of the rules on the freedom to provide services in the European Economic Area (EEA), and in particular Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge, Thorgeir Örlygsson Judge-Rapporteur, gave judgment on 3 October 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

Fürstliches Landgericht

| 1. | A provision of national law, according to which, in court proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, a lawyer from another EEA State providing services must call in a national lawyer to act in conjunction with him or her, does not fall under Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, referred to at point 2 of Annex VII EEA, and is incompatible with Article 36(1) EEA and the Directive if it requires the appointment of a national lawyer in cases where representation by a lawyer is not mandatory. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A provision of national law, according to which, in court proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, a lawyer from another EEA State providing services must call in a national lawyer to act in conjunction with him or her, does not fall under Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, referred to at point 2 of Annex VII EEA, and is incompatible with Article 36(1) EEA and the Directive if it requires the appointment of a national lawyer in cases where representation by a lawyer is not mandatory.

A provision of national law, according to which, in court proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, a lawyer from another EEA State providing services must call in a national lawyer to act in conjunction with him or her, does not fall under Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, referred to at point 2 of Annex VII EEA, and is incompatible with Article 36(1) EEA and the Directive if it requires the appointment of a national lawyer in cases where representation by a lawyer is not mandatory.

| 2. | The EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law.

The EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law.

---