Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:442
Date: 2001-09-13
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to 
provide services — Architects — Recognition of diplomas and qualifications — 
Compilation of national lists of diplomas and qualifications which must be recognised 
automatically — Obligations of Member States 
(Council Directive 85/384, Art. 7) 
I - 3129 
SUMMARY — CASE C-298/99 
2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to 
provide services — Restrictions — Requirement that an application for recognition of 
a qualification issued in another Member State be accompanied by the original diploma 
or a certified copy — justification — Not justified 
(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 59 (now, after amendment, Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)) 
3. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — 
Obligation to submit a certificate of nationality and to provide certified translations of 
the relevant documents relating to the recognition of a qualification issued in another 
Member State — justification — Not justified 
(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)) 
4. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to 
provide services — Architects — Recognition of diplomas and qualifications — 
Diplomas or qualifications giving access to practise as an architect under acquired 
rights — Transitional period expiring at the end of the period for transposition of 
Directive 85/384 
(Council Directive 85/384, Arts 3, 4 and 12) 
5. Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Member State prohibiting architects 
established in other Member States and practising in the first Member State from 
having the infrastructure needed — Not permissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC)) 
1. It is true that Article 7 of Directive 
85/384 on the mutual recognition of 
qualifications in architecture does not 
expressly require Member States to set 
out, in a national list of the qualifi­
cations to be accorded automatic rec­
ognition, the diplomas, certificates and 
other evidence of formal qualifications 
included in the lists published by the 
Commission pursuant to Article 7(2). 
However, the transposition of a direc­
tive into national law must effectively 
guarantee the full application of the 
directive in a sufficiently clear and 
precise manner so that, where the 
directive is intended to create rights 
for individuals, the persons concerned 
can ascertain the full extent of their 
rights and, where appropriate, rely on 
them before the national courts. That 
condition is of particular importance 
where the directive in question is 
intended to confer rights on nationals 
of other Member States, for whom it is 
essential to be able to identify the 
qualifications which must be accorded 
automatic recognition by the host 
Member State. 
(see paras 27-29, operative part 1) 
I - 3130 
COMMISSION v ITALY 
2. The requirement laid down in general 
terms by a Member State that the 
application for recognition of a qualifi­
cation issued in another Member State 
be accompanied by the original 
diploma or a certified copy thereof 
constitutes an impediment to the free­
dom of establishment and to the free­
dom to provide services enshrined in 
Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, 
after amendment, Articles 43 and 49 
EC), in that it gives rise to additional 
obstacles for all applicants, having 
regard to the risk of the original 
diploma being lost or of possible delay 
on the part of the Member State of 
origin in awarding that diploma, and 
the additional steps and costs resulting 
from the procedures for certifying true 
copies of original diplomas. 
Whilst it is true that the Member States 
are entitled, for overriding reasons in 
the public interest, to require evidence 
that such a diploma exists, that require­
ment is clearly disproportionate, in that 
it precludes any other form of evidence 
which might establish with the same 
degree of certainty the existence of the 
diploma in question, such as a certified 
statement or recognition of the appli­
cant's diploma by the authorities or 
professional organisations of the 
Member State of origin. 
(see paras 37-39, operative part 1) 
3. In the context of a recognition of a 
qualification issued in another Member 
State the obligation laid down by the 
host Member State to submit a certifi­
cate of nationality and to provide 
certified translations of all documents 
relating to the application for recogni­
tion cannot be regarded as necessary or 
be justified by overriding reasons in the 
public interest and is therefore incom­
patible with Article 52 of the Treaty 
(now, after amendment, Article 43 
EC). 
(see paras 45-46, operative part 1) 
4. Article 12 of Directive 85/384 on the 
mutual recognition of qualifications in 
architecture, which provides for an 
exception to the minimum training 
requirements defined in Articles 3 and 
4 of the directive by stipulating that 
each Member State must accord the 
title of architect to persons to whom 
another Member State has issued a 
certificate stating that, at the time 
when the directive was implemented, 
they were entitled to bear that title in 
that other Member State, even though 
such persons do not fulfil those mini­
mum requirements must be interpreted 
I-3131 
SUMMARY — CASE C-298/99 
as meaning that 'the implementation of 
the directive' refers to the date by 
which, at the latest, that directive was 
to be implemented. It follows that a 
Member State which has been late in 
implementing the directive may not 
extend the transitional period provided 
for in Article 12. 
(see paras 47, 51-52, operative part 1) 
5. The general prohibition by a Member 
State against architects established in 
other Member States who wish to 
provide services in the first Member 
State establishing on its territory a 
principal or secondary place of busi­
ness is incompatible with Article 59 of 
the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 49 EC) in so far as it prevents 
a provider of services established in 
another Member State from equipping 
himself, in the first Member State, with 
the infrastructure necessary for the 
purposes of the services in question. 
The fact that a provision of services is 
temporary does not mean that the 
provider of services within the meaning 
of the Treaty may not equip himself 
with some form of infrastructure in the 
host Member State (including an office, 
chambers or consulting rooms) in so 
far as such infrastructure is necessary 
for the purposes of performing the 
services in question. 
(see paras 56-57, operative part 1) 
I -3132