Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:646
Date: 2000-11-23
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Concepts: The various activities;General
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to 
provide services — Architects — Recognition of diplomas and qualifications — 
National legislation restricting the exercise of activities as an architect according to 
the definition of the profession in the Member State in which the relevant qualification 
ivas obtained — Not permissible 
(Council Directive 85/384, Arts 2 and 10) 
2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — 
Article 56 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46 EC) — Purpose — 
Existence of directives on the approximation of laws — Effects 
(Art. 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 46 EC)) 
I - 10375 
SUMMARY — CASE C-421/98 
1. A Member State which does not allow 
persons holding qualifications in archi­
tecture awarded by another Member 
State and recognised under Directive 
85/384 on the mutual recognition of 
diplomas, certificates and other evi­
dence of formal qualifications in archi­
tecture, including measures to facilitate 
the effective exercise of the right of 
establishment and freedom to provide 
services, to pursue activities other than 
those which they are authorised to 
pursue in their country of origin on 
the basis of the qualifications awarded 
by the latter, unless they collaborate 
with another member of the profession 
who is authorised to pursue those 
activities and who holds a qualification 
which is likewise recognised under the 
law of the host Member State, is in 
breach of its obligations under Arti­
cles 2 and 10 of that directive. 
It follows from Articles 2 and 10 of 
Directive 85/384 that, when an activity 
is usually pursued by architects holding 
a qualification awarded by the host 
Member State, a migrant architect 
holding a diploma, certificate or other 
evidence of formal qualifications com­
ing within the scope of the directive 
must also be able to pursue such an 
activity, even if his diploma, certificate 
or other evidence of formal qualifica­
tions is not necessarily substantively 
equivalent in terms of the training 
received. While it is true that it is for 
the national legislation of the host 
Member State to define the field of 
activities covered by the profession of 
architect, once an activity is regarded 
by a Member State as coming within 
that field, the requirement of mutual 
recognition means that migrant archi­
tects must also be able to pursue that 
activity. 
(see paras 37, 38, 45 and operative part 1) 
2. Article 56 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, Article 46 EC) is not 
designed to reserve certain matters to 
the exclusive jurisdiction of Member 
States but permits national laws to 
derogate from the principle of free 
movement to the extent to which such 
derogation is and continues to be 
justified for the attainment of the 
objectives referred to therein. Where 
Community directives provide for har­
monisation of the measures necessary 
to ensure the protection of a specific 
objective, recourse to Article 56 of the 
Treaty is no longer justified and the 
appropriate checks must be carried out 
and measures of protection adopted 
within the framework outlined by the 
harmonising directive in question. 
(see paras 41-42) 
I - 10376