Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:156
Date: 2011-03-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 1. Freedom to provide services – Services – Concept (Art. 50 EC; Art. 57 TFEU) 2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Exceptions – Activities connected with the exercise of official authority (Art. 45 EC, first para.; Art. 51 TFEU, first para.) 3. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Activities of court experts in the field of translation (Art. 49 EC; Art. 56 TFEU) 4. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Activities of court experts in the field of translation (Art. 49 EC; Art. 56 TFEU) 5. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Workers – Recognition of professional qualifications – Scope of Directive 2005/36 – Concept of ‘regulated profession’ (European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36, Art. 3(1)(a)) 1. A duty entrusted by a court, case by case in the proceedings brought before it, to a professional who has been appointed as a court expert translator constitutes the provision of services for the purposes of Article 50 EC (now Article 57 TFEU). The mere fact that the remuneration of court experts is fixed in accordance with a rate decided by the public authority is of no consequence as regards the categorisation of the work which those experts are called upon to perform as the provision of services. (see paras 38, 40, operative part 1) 2. The activities of court experts in the field of translation do not constitute activities connected with the exercise of official authority for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 45 EC (now the first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU), for the translations carried out by such an expert are merely ancillary steps and leave the appraisal of the court and the free exercise of judicial power intact. (see paras 44-45, operative part 2) 3. Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precludes national legislation under which enrolment in a register of court expert translators is subject to conditions concerning qualifications, but the interested parties cannot learn the reasons for the decision taken in their regard and that decision is not open to effective judicial action enabling its legality to be reviewed as regards, inter alia, its compliance with the requirement under Union law that their qualifications obtained and recognised in other Member States should have been properly taken into account. (see para. 65, operative part 3) 4. Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precludes a requirement laid down by a national law to the effect that no person may be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he can prove that he has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel, when it is found that such a requirement prevents, in the consideration of an application by a person established in another Member State who cannot prove that he has been so enrolled, the qualification obtained by that person and recognised in another Member State from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether, and, if so, to what extent, that qualification may attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel. Admittedly, in view of the specific nature of the duties of court expert translators who are enrolled in a register maintained by a cour d’appel, and the fact that many months or years may pass between successive assignments, it is appropriate to allow the Member State concerned a measure of discretion as to the period considered necessary to achieve the objectives of protecting litigants and ensuring the sound administration of justice. Accordingly, the requirement that the translator must have been enrolled in a register of court experts for three consecutive years does not, in principle, go beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives. However, the application of such a rule to a court expert translator from another Member State who has already performed duties for the courts of that Member State or for the courts of other Member States – and, in particular, for the higher courts of those Member States – is disproportionate in relation to the principle that national authorities must ensure, inter alia, that qualifications obtained in another Member State are accorded their proper value and duly taken into account. (see paras 74-75, 78, operative part 4) 5. The duties of court expert translators, as discharged by experts enrolled in a register such as the national register of court experts maintained by the French Cour de cassation, are not covered by the definition of ‘regulated profession’ set out in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications, since the sole purpose of the provisions governing enrolment in that register is to facilitate recourse to the services of professionals, whether members of regulated professions or not, and not to lay down rules governing recognition of a particular qualification, a matter which does not fall within the competence of the cours d’appel or of the Bureau of the Cour de cassation, and, moreover, those courts may lawfully have recourse to experts who are not entered in those registers. (see paras 30, 32, operative part 5)