Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:771
Date: 2009-12-10
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of workers
Concepts: General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access to a legal traineeship for the regulated legal professions (Art. 39 EC) 2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access to a legal traineeship for the regulated legal professions (Art. 39 EC) 1. Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the knowledge to be taken as a reference point for the purposes of assessing the equivalence of training following an application for direct admission to a legal traineeship for the legal professions, without taking the exams he would otherwise have to sit, is that attested by the qualification required in the Member State in which the candidate seeks to be admitted to serve such a legal traineeship. In the course of the comparative examination of the qualification attested by diplomas, certificates and other qualifications of the candidate and also by his relevant professional experience, on the one hand, and of the professional requirements laid down in the national rules, on the other, a Member State may take into consideration objective differences relating to both the legal framework of the profession in question in the Member State of origin and to its field of activity. In the case of the profession of lawyer, a Member State may therefore carry out a comparative examination of diplomas, taking account of the differences identified between the national legal systems concerned. Thus, the mere fact that legal studies relating to the law of one Member State may be regarded as comparable, from the point of view of both the level of training received and the time and effort invested to that end, to studies seeking to provide the knowledge attested by the qualification required in another Member State, cannot of itself lead, in the context of the comparative examination, to an obligation to give priority, not to the knowledge required by the national provisions of the Member State in which the candidate seeks to benefit from the professional training required in order to enter the legal professions, but to knowledge which relates essentially to the law of another Member State, attested by the qualifications obtained in that latter State. (see paras 37, 44, 46, 48, operative part 1) 2. Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of a Member State consider an application of a national of another Member State to be admitted to serve a practical training period, such as a legal traineeship for the legal professions, with a view to exercising a regulated legal profession at a later date, that article does not of itself oblige those authorities to require from the candidate, in the examination of equivalence required by Community law, merely a level of legal knowledge which is lower than that attested by the qualification required in that Member State for access to such a period of practical training. However, Article 39 EC does not preclude a degree of flexibility as regards the qualification required. Moreover it is important that, in practice, the possibility of partial recognition of the knowledge attested by qualifications which the person concerned has obtained should be more than merely notional. That is a matter for the national court to determine. (see para. 65, operative part 2)