Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:234
Date: 2025-04-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary C-807/23 – 1 
Case C-807/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
29 December 2023 
Referring court: 
Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 October 2023 
Appellant: 
DF 
Respondent: 
Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers – Lawyer training – Substitute periods and 
core periods – Activity abroad 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must Article 45 TFEU on freedom of movement for workers be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation under which, as a condition for inclusion in the list 
of Austrian trainee lawyers, part of the practical training (training period) of a 
trainee lawyer must be completed as a trainee lawyer with a lawyer established in 
Austria, that is to say, within the national territory (‘core period’), whereas, for 
that part of the practical training (training period), activity for a lawyer established 
in another Member State is not sufficient, even if that activity is carried out there 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-807/23 
 
2  
under the supervision of a lawyer admitted in Austria practising in the field of 
Austrian law? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 45 TFEU 
Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 
1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a 
Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained 
Council Directive 89/48/EEC of the Council of 21 December 1988 on a general 
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion 
of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Bundesgesetz über den freien Dienstleistungsverkehr und die Niederlassung von 
europäischen Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälten sowie die Erbringung von 
Rechtsdienstleistungen durch international tätige Rechtsanwältinnen und 
Rechtsanwälte in Österreich (Federal Law on the freedom to provide services and 
the establishment of European lawyers and the provision of legal services by 
internationally active lawyers in Austria, ‘the EIRAG’) 
Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Lawyers Code, ‘the RAO’) 
Paragraph 30 (1) In order to obtain registration in the list of trainee lawyers, a 
notice shall be sent to the board when commencing practical training with a 
lawyer, accompanied by proof of Austrian nationality, nationality of a Member 
State of the European Union or of another State party to the European Economic 
Area Agreement or of the Swiss Confederation, as well as proof of having 
completed studies of Austrian law (Paragraph 3). The period of practical training 
with a lawyer (Paragraph 2(2)) will only be calculated as of the date on which this 
notice is received. 
Paragraph 2 (2) The practical training as defined in Paragraph 1 shall cover a 
period of five years. A minimum of seven months of this period shall be spent 
working at a court or a public prosecution office in Austria and a minimum of 
three years with a lawyer in Austria. 
(3)   The following activities shall also be recognised for the purposes of 
the duration of the practical training that need not necessarily be spent at a court 
or a public prosecution office or with a lawyer in Austria: 
1. a maximum of six months of university education after completing studies of 
Austrian law (Paragraph 3) if this led to an additional academic qualification in 
law being obtained; 
JONES DAY 
 
3 
2. a practical training period abroad equivalent to the training as defined in 
Paragraph (1), provided this activity has been useful for practising the profession 
of lawyer. 
3. any other legal practice in Austria or abroad, provided that such activity has 
been useful for practising the profession of lawyer and has been carried out under 
the responsibility of a duly qualified person or body. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By e-mail of 14 January 2022, DF, the first appellant, applied to the 
Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (Vienna Bar Association, Austria) for inclusion in 
the list of trainee lawyers and for a partial entitlement card to practice under 
Paragraph 15(3) of the RAO. To that end, she also sent the application form 
signed by KI, the second appellant, as her training lawyer. 
2 By letter of 7 March 2022, following a request for information, DF informed the 
Bar Association that she was working at Jones Day in Frankfurt am Main 
(Germany), where she was also domiciled and habitually resident. She had a 
secondary residence in Vienna. Her training lawyer was an Austrian lawyer and 
partner with Jones Day at the Frankfurt office. He advised Austrian and other 
clients in Austrian law and represented them before Austrian authorities and 
courts. She also accompanied him to such meetings. She had several weekly 
contacts with Austrian authorities and courts to represent her training lawyer’s 
clients. 
3 DF also sent her contract of employment with Jones Day. It was governed by 
German law and DF’s place of work was Frankfurt am Main. 
4 By letter of 20 April 2022, KI sent, inter alia, a summary list of the work carried 
out by the first appellant in the field of Austrian law during the period from 
1 January to 14 April 2022. 
5 By decision of 14 June 2022, the competent section of the Vienna Bar Association 
rejected the first appellant’s applications for inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers 
and for the partial entitlement card to practise. While it is true that 
Paragraph 30(1) of the RAO does not contain local requirements as conditions for 
registration as a trainee lawyer, that provision refers to Paragraph 2(2) of the 
RAO, which assumes activity as a trainee lawyer with a lawyer established within 
the national territory. 
6 The first appellant appealed against that decision. However, the board of the 
Vienna Bar Association (plenary assembly) confirmed it by decision of 
6 September 2022 and rejected the first appellant’s application. In that regard, the 
following was stated: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-807/23 
 
4  
– The second appellant is a partner in Jones Day, an unlimited 
partnership under the law of the U.S. State of Ohio, established in 
Cleveland. His office is in Vienna, but he has been declared absent 
since 15 November 2016 due to permanent residence abroad. 
– The first appellant in the main proceedings satisfies the personal 
conditions for registration as a trainee lawyer; there are no grounds for 
refusal. 
– Her employment relationship does not exist with the second appellant 
but with Jones Day in Frankfurt am Main. 
– Inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers was refused on the ground that it 
was conditional on working for a lawyer within the national territory. 
7 Previously, on 1 September 2022, the second appellant, acting on behalf of Jones 
Day, notified the Vienna Bar Association of the end of the first appellant’s 
employment relationship with effect from 31 August 2022. 
8 The appellants appealed against the decision of 6 September 2022 to the Oberster 
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria). 
Brief presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 The appeal now relates only to the ‘retroactive inclusion of the first appellant in 
the list of trainee lawyers for the period from 14 January 2022 to 31 August 2022’, 
with the result that the referring court must examine the contested decision only in 
that regard. DF’s employment relationship with Jones Day ended on 31 August 
2022, with the result that any entitlement card issued to her would have become 
invalid on that date. From that date, the issue of an entitlement card was therefore 
no longer of any legal interest. A lawyer has no independent interest in the 
inclusion of a trainee lawyer in the list of trainee lawyers. In the absence of any 
legal interest on the part of the second appellant, his appeal was dismissed by the 
referring court. 
10 A trainee lawyer may represent a party before the courts and authorities only after 
inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers (B. Fink in Murko/Nunner-Krautgasser 
(editors), Anwaltliches und notarielles Berufsrecht, § 30 RAO, Rz 5). The 
‘retroactive effect’ as of the day of receipt of the notice, referred to in the last 
sentence of Paragraph 30(1) of the RAO, relates only to the taking into account of 
time in practice, but not to the creation of the power of representation (B. Fink, op 
cit., Rz 4; OGH 2.10.2014, 24 Os 6/14h). 
11 If, on the date of the decision, the registration applicant had already left the law 
firm, there is no scope for retroactive registration. In that situation, it is necessary 
to recognise the applicant’s legal interest in finding that the conditions for 
registration were met, this being a condition for taking into account the time in 
JONES DAY 
 
5 
practice (as already argued in OBDK 25.10.1993, Bkv 7/92 AnwBl 1994, 531 and 
30.10.1998, Bkv 5/98 AnwBl 1999, 175). In the present case, it is therefore not 
necessary to recognise retroactive registration, but to determine whether and, if so, 
during what period the conditions for inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers were 
met. 
12 In accordance with Paragraph 30(1) of the RAO, read in conjunction with 
Paragraph 2(2) of the RAO, for the purposes of inclusion in the list of trainee 
lawyers when taking up practical work for a lawyer established in Austria, a 
notice must be submitted to the competent Bar Association board, accompanied 
by proof of Austrian nationality and a proof of qualification awarded on 
completion of studies of Austrian law; the duration of the practical training 
(training period) is five years. 
13 The practical training to be spent within the national territory is also referred to as 
the ‘core period’. There are also ‘substitute periods’ which do not necessarily have 
to be spent in a court, at a public prosecutor’s office or with a lawyer within the 
national territory, for example any equivalent activity abroad. 
14 The possibility to spend substitute periods abroad was created in 1973, but 
inclusion in the list of trainee lawyers continued to be possible only when taking 
up work for a law office established within the national territory, no legislation to 
the contrary having been put in place. Furthermore, the term ‘office’ is also be 
understood as a workplace, which expresses a geographical link with the national 
territory. 
15 In the present case, the first appellant was employed by a law firm under the law 
of the U.S. State of Ohio, which has a branch in Frankfurt am Main, DF’s place of 
employment. DF therefore joined an office in Germany. This cannot constitute 
practical training within the national territory, even for activities under the 
direction of an Austrian lawyer in the field of Austrian law. Even taking modern 
communication possibilities into account, an activity in Frankfurt am Main cannot 
substitute the intensity of the judicial and administrative contacts guaranteed by 
training in Austria. It also seems unlikely that the first appellant would travel from 
Frankfurt am Main to participate in proceedings before the Austrian courts and 
authorities, particularly in view of the fact that the ‘partial’ entitlement card which 
she seeks to obtain confers only a very limited right of representation. Although in 
the field of Austrian arbitration law, in which, by his own account, the second 
appellant mainly carries out his activities, there is no obligation to be represented 
by a lawyer, so that representation with a partial entitlement card would be 
possible (Rohregger in Engelhart Hoffmann Lehner Rohregger Vitek, RAO10 § 15 
Rz 23), this small field cannot provide the comprehensive training appropriate to 
the lawyer’s professional profile. 
16 The website of the Vienna Bar Association contains a list of criteria for the 
recognition of professional traineeships from which it is apparent that a 
professional traineeship which is not completed in Austria with an Austrian 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-807/23 
 
6  
lawyer may be taken into account only for substitute periods. The appellants must 
therefore have been aware of that practice. That legislation also seems reasonable, 
as otherwise insoluble questions would be raised as to the foreign states in which 
the trainer lawyer may have his or her office and where the trainee lawyer’s place 
of employment may be located – only in German-speaking foreign countries, 
neighbouring countries, the European Union, etc. 
17 In addition, professional supervision also militates in favour of the requirement to 
join a law office located within the national territory. The scope of the Bar 
Association extends only to each federal Land, in which it has supervisory and 
monitoring obligations vis-à-vis its members. It also includes checks to verify 
whether the specialist training required, in particular professional training, is 
carried out (Vitek in Engelhart Hoffmann Lehner Rohrgger Vitek, RAO10 § 30 
Rz 3). 
18 The lawyer must ensure full training of the trainee lawyer corresponding to the 
lawyer’s professional profile. The supervision and monitoring obligation of the 
Bar Association also includes reviewing activities directly with the lawyer, who is 
required to grant the board’s review bodies access to the law office (Gartner in 
Murko/Nunner-Krautgasser (editors), Anwaltliches und notarielles Berufsrecht, § 
1 DSt Rz 186). That would not be possible in the case of a place of employment of 
the trainee lawyer abroad. 
19 To date, the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court, Austria) has not raised 
any objection to the refusal to recognise activities carried out in law offices abroad 
for the core period. The referring court also considers that the distinction between 
core periods and substitute periods is not unobjective and has no doubt as to the 
legality of the Vienna Bar Association’s catalogue of criteria for the recognition of 
professional traineeships. 
20 DF considers that her freedom of movement is restricted because her mere 
physical presence in Germany prevents her from practising as a trainee lawyer for 
an Austrian lawyer, despite being exclusively occupied with Austrian law, and she 
claims there is no justification for that. The answer to this question depends 
decisively on whether the fact that core periods must necessarily be spent within 
the national territory infringes the free movement of workers even when part of 
the period of practical training may be spent abroad as a substitute period. 
21 DF relies on the judgment of 17 December 2020, Onofrei (C-218/19, 
EU:C:2020:1034), which, however, did not concern inclusion in the list of trainee 
lawyers but access to the profession of lawyer. In that judgment, the Court held 
that since the conditions for access to the profession of lawyer of a person who 
has not been authorised in any Member State to exercise that profession have not, 
up the present time, been harmonised at EU level, the Member States retain the 
power to define those conditions. It follows that EU law does not preclude 
legislation of a Member State from making access to the profession of lawyer 
contingent on the possession of the knowledge and qualifications deemed to be 
JONES DAY 
 
7 
necessary. However, the Member States must exercise their powers in this area in 
a manner which respects the basic freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty. 
22 The Court has already held, in its judgment of 30 November 1995, Gebhard 
(C-55/94, EU:C:1995:411), that national rules that restrict access to the profession 
are in principle lawful but must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. The 
national measures must fulfil four conditions: 
– they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; 
– they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general 
interest; 
– they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective 
which they pursue; 
– they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. 
23 In the judgment in Case C-218/19, the Court also recalled that the protection of 
consumers and the proper administration of justice are objectives which feature 
among those which may be regarded as overriding reasons in the public interest 
capable of justifying restrictions both on the freedom to provide services, as well 
as on the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment. 
24 In the present case, the decisive question is whether a national provision under 
which part of the practical training period of a professional trainee must be spent 
within the national territory (‘core period’) infringes the free movement of 
workers when another part of the period of practical training (‘substitute period’) 
may be spent abroad in any case. 
25 The referring court considers this differentiation to be appropriate and consistent 
with EU law. In accordance with Paragraph 18(1) of the EIRAG, which 
implements EU law, anyone who has effectively and regularly practised in Austria 
as a European lawyer established in Austria for at least three years in the field of 
Austrian law, including EU law, is to be entered in the list of lawyers. EU law 
therefore requires not only knowledge of local law but also local activity. An 
activity solely from abroad does not satisfy this requirement. It is clear that this is 
the only way that the practical experience necessary for practising the profession 
of lawyer within the national territory can be acquired. If that is the case for 
lawyers, the same must also apply to professional trainees.