Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:131
Date: 2000-03-16
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Treaty provi­
sions — Scope — Company belonging to a group of companies established in various 
Member States — Included 
(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)) 
I-837 
SUMMARY — CASE C-108/96 
2. Freedom of movement for persons —• Freedom of establishment — National autho­
rities reserving the performance of certain optical examinations to professionals 
holding specific qualifications — Justification — Protection of public health — 
Whether permissible — Conditions 
(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)) 
1. The legal position of a company 
belonging to a group of companies 
established in various Member States 
which markets products and services in 
the optics sector comes, by virtue of its 
status as a subsidiary of a company 
established in another Member State, 
within the scope of Community law 
pursuant to the provisions of Article 52 
of the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 43 EC). 
(see para. 16) 
2. As Community law stands at present, 
Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, Article 43 EC) does not 
preclude the competent authorities of a 
Member State from interpreting the 
national law governing the practice of 
medicine in such a way that, within the 
context of the correction of purely 
optical defects, the objective examina­
tion of a client's eyesight, that is to say, 
an examination which does not use a 
method under which the client alone 
determines the optical defects from 
which he is suffering, is reserved, for 
reasons relating to the protection of 
public health, to a category of profes­
sionals holding specific qualifications, 
such as ophthalmologists, to the exclu­
sion, in particular, of opticians who are 
not qualified medical doctors. The 
choice of a Member State to reserve 
to such professionals the right to carry 
out objective eyesight examinations on 
their patients using sophisticated 
instruments that make it possible to 
assess internal eye pressure, determine 
the field of vision or analyse the 
condition of the retina, may be regar­
ded as an appropriate means by which 
to ensure attainment of a high level of 
health protection. 
However, the resulting prohibition of 
certain optical examinations by opti­
cians who are not qualified medical 
doctors, which applies irrespective of 
the nationality and Member State of 
establishment of those to whom it is 
addressed, must be necessary and pro­
portionate to secure that objective. In 
this connection, the assessment of the 
risks to public health is liable to change 
with the passage of time, particularly 
as a result of technical and scientific 
progress. 
It is for the national court to assess, in 
the light of the Treaty requirements 
I -838 
MAC QUEN AND OTHERS 
relating to freedom of establishment 
and the demands of legal certainty and 
the protection of public health, whe­
ther the interpretation of domestic law 
adopted by the competent national 
authorities in that regard remains a 
valid basis for the prosecutions brought 
in the case in the main proceedings. 
(see paras 27, 30 to 31, 35 to 38 and 
operative part) 
I -839