Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1998:520
Date: 1998-10-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Concepts: The various activities
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary of the Judgment
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services
— Conditions for taking up an activity as a self-employed person in manufacturing and processing
industries — Recognition of actual pursuit of an activity in another Member State — Detailed
provisions — Application to take up and pursue a number of trades
(EC Treaty, Arts 3(c), 52 and 59; Council Directive 64/627, Art. 3)
I - 6747
SUMMARY —JOINED CASES C-193/97 AND C-194/97
On a proper construction of Article 3 of
Directive 64/427 laying down detailed provi­
sions concerning transitional measures in
respect of activities of self-employed persons
in manufacturing and processing industries
falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
(Industry and small craft industries), where,
in a Member State, the possession of specific
knowledge and ability is a condition for taking
up and pursuing an activity as a self-employed
person in a manufacturing or processing
industry or small craft industry, that Member
State may not require of a Community
national who applies for licences to pursue
occupational activities in that Member State
which he is certified by the competent authori­
ties of his Member State of origin to have
pursued there, that he have completed sepa­
rately, in respect of each of the trades whose
scope is defined by the legislation of the host
State, the periods prescribed by that article.
Even if the activities certified by the Member
State of origin as having been pursued fall
within the scope of several occupations as
defined by the host Member State, the host
Member State is bound by the declarations
contained in the certificate issued by the
Member State of origin and may not, there­
fore, define either the conditions for taking
up each of the small craft occupations or then-
scope in such a way that the certificate issued
is rendered useless for the purpose of enabling
the applicant to engage in the occupation to
which that certificate relates in the host
Member State.
That interpretation is in accordance with the
second paragraph of Article 3 of the Direc­
tive, which provides that pursuit of the activity
must not have ceased more than 10 years
before the date when the application for estab­
lishment is made. Were it possible for the
host Member State to require an applicant to
have carried on each of the trades indepen­
dently for six consecutive years, in accordance
with Article 3(a) of the Directive, that appli­
cant would not be able to prove, on the basis
of documentary evidence accepted as equiva­
lent, that he had the knowledge and ability
necessary to qualify for authorisation to carry
on more than two activities.
The interpretation is further justified by the
requirements of freedom of establishment and
freedom to provide services as guaranteed by
Articles 3(c), 52 and 59 of the Treaty. Those
freedoms, which are fundamental in the Com­
munity system, could not be achieved if each
Member State were able to rely on its own
restrictive definition of the scope of each of
the small craft occupations in order to refuse
to allow persons who have acquired the rel­
evant experience prescribed by the Directive
in another Member State from benefiting from
the provisions of Community law.
I - 6748