ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(75)442
Vol.1975/0169

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION GFTHEEUE.OPBANCQMMUNITIES
COM(75)442 final
Brussel ,25July 1975
Amended Proposai for a
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
tofacilitate the effective exercise "by
lawyers offreedom toprovide services
(Presented bytheCommission tothe
Council pursuant tothe second paragraph
ofArticle 149 ,oftheEEC-Treaty )
COM(75 )442final

II XIIA5V75-E
Explanatory Mémorandum
1.On1?April 19b9 theCommission Submitted totheCouncil aproposal
for aDirective concerning the attainment offreedom toprovide
services forcertain activities oflawyers ^\TheEconomic and
Social Committee andtheEuropean Parliament delivered their .
(2)Opinions onthis proposal for aDirective on25February 1970
3 'and 21September 19/2 respectively .
2.Discussions onthis proposal for aDirective began intheCouncil
atthe end of1972 .These discussions quickly revealed differences
.ofopinion ,inparticular with regard to,first ,theinterpretation
ofArticle 55oftheTreaty ,andsecondly ,after theenlargement
oftheCommunity ,thetaking into account ofcertain factors peculiar
tothenewMember States whose legal systems arebased oncommon law .
3.Furthermore ,intheJudgments inCases2/?k (Reyners v.Belgian State )'
of21June 197^and33/7b(VanBinsbergen v.Bestuur van de
Bedri jfsvereniging voor deMetaalni jverheid )of3December 197^»the
case lawoftheCourt ofJustice oftheEuropean Communities revealed
some important new elements . .
Atits315th meeting on26November 197^*theCouncil (Ministers of
Justice )requested theCommission topresent anamended proposal for v
aDirective .This amended proposal takes account ofthenewlegal
situation created byJudgments 2/7^and33/7^aswell asofthe
circumstances ofMember States with common law systems .
5.TheCommission hasadopted this amended proposal after discussions
with the government authorities ofIreland and theUnited Kingdom ,
(ontheone hand ,and with theConsultative Committee ofBar
Associations ofthe EEC Member Countries onthe other .
(1)0JKo.C?8,20June 1969
(2)0JNo.C36,28March 1970
(3)OJNo.C103 ,5October 1972 .

11/4
II.I. -XIÏ/454/75-E
6.Theprincipalamendmentscontainedinthisdoevjnantaredescribed
below.
7.InitsJudgment33/74,theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities
statedthatsince1Januaxy197°Article59a-ndthethirdparagraph
ofArticle60ofthotreatyhavehaddirecteffect.Consequently those
partsoftheoriginalproposalforaDirectivewhichconoernthe
removalofrestrictions arenolongernecessary.
8.Theoriginalproposal "foraDireotiveenvisaged,inArticle2(2),the
right,intheprovisionofservices,ofarguingacasewithoutrestric­
tionbeforethecourts,accesstodocuments,visitstotheprisoner
andpresenceatthepreparatoryenquiry.
Followingtheinterpretation ofArticle55oftheEECTreatygiven "by
thoCourtofJustioeinJudgment2/f4,thereisnodoubtthatactivi­
tiessuchastherepresentation anddefenceofpartiesinalawsuit
arenotcoveredbythatArticle,eveniftheyarecarriedoutpursuant
toanobligationoranexclusiverightlaiddownbylaw.Ittherefore
appearspossibletoadoptmeasuresto"facilitatetheeffectiveexer­
cise"ofalltheactivitiesoflawyers.
9.AnewfonaulahasbeenintroducedintoArticle2oftheamendedpro­
posal.Thismeansthat"theeffectiveexercise"oftheactivitiesin
questionisinthemainmadepossiblebytherecognitionaslawyersof
personswhoareregularlypractisingthisprofessioninanotherMember
Stance.Forthepurposeofclarity,theprofessionaltitlesofthese*
personsaregivenindrbailinparagraph2ofArtiole1.

IV ХП/454Л5-Е
10.Article3oxthenewtextreplacesthefirstindentofArticle5
oftheoriginalproposalwithoutmaterialchange.
11.ThenewArticle4takesaccountofthespecialaspectsarisirgin
connectionwithactivitiesofrepresentation anddefenceofaclient
•beforethecourts.Itisnecessaryfirstofalltoadopttheprin­
cipleoftheapplicationoftheconditionsinforceinthehost
MemberState,withtheexception,ofcourse,ofanyconditionof
residencethatStat6.Thenitisessentialthatthelawyeracting
withinthoframeworkofthejudicialsystemofacountryotherthan
hisownshouldbesubjecttotheprofessional rulesapplicableto
lawyersestablishedinthehostMemberState,altnoughremaining
subjecttotherulesofthecountryfromwhiohhecomes.I'orecver,
certainspecialprovisionsarenecessarytotakeaccountofthe
differenttypesoflawyerwithinIrelandandtheUnitedKingdom.
Astootheractivities,notdirectlyrelatedtotheadministration
ofjustice,therequirementtorespecttheprofessional rulesofthe
hostMemberStatewouldintroduceanoticeableconstraintuponthe
provioioaofeanriooe,wi-thoutetiffioietrt -reasonjmoreoversucharequire­
mentwouldnotcorrespondtopresentpractice,wheretheree::ist3
almostcompletefreedomasregardstheseactivities.
12.Followingdiscussionswhichithadwithrepresentatives ofthepro­
fession,theCommissionproposesthatArticle3oftheoriginalpro­
posalbedeleted,Firsttitisevidentthat,bydefinition,thepro­
.visionofservicesdoesnottakeplaoefromanestablishment in
thehostcountrywithinthemeaningofArticle52.Secondly,apro­
visionwherebyserviceswoitldhavetobeprovidedundercoiviract
concludedinthecoursoofthelawyer'sprofessionalactivities",
appearstobetoorestrictive .

ν ni/434/75-S
In'Article5ofthe'not;-texttheCommissionhasprovidedfor
certainamendmentstoArticledoftheoriginalproposalinorder
totakeaccountinparticularofthenewlegalsituationcreatedby
Judgment33/f4»First,itappearsnecessarytochangetheoriginal
provisionintoanext-bindingprevision,toenableMemberStates
withlessrestrictiverulesorpracticestoretainthera.
Secondly,theprovisionrelatingtocollaboration betweentheperson
providingservicesandthelocallawyerhasbecomethesubjectofanew
text.TheCommissionhasbeenunabletoagreetoasuggestionmadeby
somethatprovisionshouldbemadeforaMemberStatetobeableto
requirethatalawyerprovidingservioesrelatingtotherepresenta­
tionanddefenceofaclientbeforethecourtsshouldact"underthe
direction"or"undertheoontrol"ofalocallawyer.Suchwording
wouldinfactmakeitpossibletoremoveagreatdealofthesut>-
stanceoftheEirective.TheCommissionacceptshoweverthatincases
wherealawyerprovidingservicesisrequiredtoaotinconjunction
withalocallawyer,itmayalsobenecessary,insomeMemberStates,
torequirethatthelocallawyerconcernedshouldbetheparsonrespon­
sibletotheCourtinquestion*:?Provision 1has'accordinglybeenmade
tomeetthispoint. r.'..
Artiole6ofthenew;textconstitutesanadaptedandsimplified ,!
versionoftheprovisionsofArtiole7oftheoriginalproposal.
•Artiole76fthenowtextcombinestheprovisionsofArticles3and9
oftheoriginalproposal.

XII/454/75-E
amendedprrporalforaCour.oilDirective
■Ii■Bin–imntjmmum.imtmm -*■ri-.Tjfyr»i*jT^iiw ,.-tw«y»-mni>>iwi «n».m
tofacilitate theeffectiveexercise
bylaiyersoffreedontoprovideservices
THECOUNCILOPTHEEUROPEAN "C0IJOTITIE3,
HavingregardtotheTreatyestablishing theEuropeanEconomic
Community,andinparticularArticles57snd-66thereof;
Eavin^regardtotheproposalfromtheCommission;
HavingregardtotheOpinionoftheEuropeanParliament;
HavingregardtotheOpinionoftheEconomicmdSocialCommittee

-2~ yt;
■■■''·!■:
WhereaspusuanttotheTreatyallrestrictions ontheprovisionof
servioe3whiohare"basedonnationalityoronconditionsofresi­
dencehavebeenprohibitedsincetheendofthetransitional period?
WhereasthisDirectivedealsonlywithmeasurestofacilitatethe
effectiveexerciseoftheactivitiesoflawyersbywayoftheprovi­
sionofservices?whereasmeasurestofacilitatetheeffectiveexercise
oftherightofestablishment willrequiremoredetailedpreparation ?
Whereasiflawyersaretoexerciseeffectivelythefreedomtopro­
videservicesthehostMemberStatemustrecognisethestatusas
lawyersofthosepersonspractisingtheprofessioninthevarious
MemberStates;
Whereas,sincethisDirectivesolelyconcernsprovisionofservices
anddoesnotcontainprovisionsonthemutualrecognitionofdiplomas,
abenefioiaryoftheDirectivemustadopttheprofessionaltitleused
intheMemberStateinwhichheisestablished ?
Whereasthelawyershouldexerciseactivitiesrelatingtotherepre­
sentationanddefenceofaclientbeforethecourtsunderthesame
oonditionsaslawyersestablishedinthehostcountry,totheexclusion,
.however,cfanyrequirementofafixedabodeinthatcountryandany
conditionofregistration withaprofessional organisation ?
Whereasfortheexerciseoftheseactivitiesprovisionshouldbemade
toensurethatthelawyerobservestherulesofprofessional conduct
ofthehostMemberState,withoutprejudice,however,tohisobliga­
tionsintheMemberStatefromwhichhecomes?whereas,ifinaMember
Statetheprofessionoflawyeriscarriedonbyseveralcategoriesof
lawyer,eachofwhichissubjeottoitsownprofessionalrulesitis
necessarytodeterminewhichrulesmustbeobservedbyalawyerfrom
anotherMemberState?

-3- m/454/75-E
Whereas fortheexercise ofactivities other than those relating
totherepresentation anddefence ofaclient before thecourts ,
andinorder topreserve thefreedom which atpresent exists inthis
field within theCommunity ,itissufficient toensure that the
lawyer remains subject totheprofessional rules oftheMember
State from which hecomes j
Whereas ,asregards activities relating totherepresentation and
defence ofaclient before thecourts ,theexisting differences bet­
ween certain Member States inmatters ofrules ofprocedure could
justify arequirement that alawyer providing services should colla­
borate with alocal lawyer whowould be ,ifnecessary ,responsible
tothecourt incuostionj
Whereas theprofessional organisation ofthehost Member State should
begiven powers toverify that theperson providing services isduly
authorised topursue hisactivities inthe courrfciy inwhich heis
established «

.-4
HASADOPTEDTHISDIRECTIVE:'"
Articl'o 1,
'Ί
1.TheprovisionsofthisDirectiveshellfpply,withinthelimits
andundertheconditionslaiddownbythen,totheactivitiesof
lawyerscarriedonToywayofprovisionofservices. '
2."Lawyer"meanspersonsexercisingaprofessional activityunder
oneofthefollowingdesignations :
•Belgitun "'
Avocat-Advoca?.t -' '
Denmark
Advokat
Germany ■
Rechtsanwalt
France
Avocat
, ■
Ireland ,
Barristerpractisingattheoar
Solicitorinprivatepractice .
Italy
Awocato
.IJixeEÏbourg
Avocat-avoué
Netherlcnds
Advocaat
UnitedICmpdom
Advocatepractisingatthebar
Barristerpractisingatthebar
Solicitorinprivatepractice

-5- XH/454/75-E
Article2
EachMemberStateshallrecogniseasalawyerforthepurposeofexer­
cisingtheactivitiesspecifiedinArticle1(l),anypersonlistedin
para.2ofthatarticle.
Article3
ApersonreferredtoinArticle1shalladopttheprofessionaltitleused
intheMemberStatefromwhichhecomesexpressedinthelanguageofthat
countiy»withanindicationoftheprofessional organizationtowhichhe
belongs,orthecourtoflawwithwhichheisregisteredpursuanttothe
lawsoftheMemberStatefromwhichhecomes.
Article4
1)Theactivitiesoflawyersrelatingtotherepresentation anddefence
ofaclientbeforethecourtsshallbecarriedonineachhostMember
Stateundertheconditionslaiddowninrespectoflawyersestablished
inthatState,withtheexceptionofanyconditionrequiringresidence
inthatStateorregistration withaprofessional organization ,
2)Intheexerciseoftheseactivitiesthelawyerwillobeytherulesof
professional conductlaiddowninthehostMemberStatewithoutpredudice
tohisobligationsintheMemberStatefromwhichhecomes,
3)WhentheseactivitiesarepursuedintheUnitedKingdom,"rulesofpro­
fessionalcorductlaiddowninthehostMemberState"meanstherulesof
professional conductapplicabletosolicitors,wheretheactivitiesare
notreservedforbarristersandadvocates.Otherwisetherulesofprofes­
sionalconductapplicabletothelattershallapply.However,barristersfrom
Irelandshallalwaysbesubjecttotherulesofprofessional corductappli­
cabletobarristers andadvocates.
WhentheseactivitiesarepursuedinIreland,"rulesofprofessional con­
ductlaiddownir.thehostMemberState"meansthe-rules-of,profoasional con­
ductapplicabletosolicitors.However,barristersandadvocatesfromthe
UnitedKingdomshallalwaysbesubjecttotherulesofprofessional con­
ductapplicabletobarristers,
4)Fortheexerciseofactivitiesotherthanthosereferredtoinpara.1,
thelawyerremainssubjecttotherulesofprofessional conductonlyof
theMemberStatefromwhichhecomes.

мП« χπ/'^ν'τ -^
Article 5
For thepursuit ofactivities relating totherepresentation and
defa .ceofaclient before thecourts ,Member States mayimpose
the following obligations onpersons wishing toprovide services i
-they must beintroduced ,inaccordance with Ipcal custom ,tothe
presiding judge ;
-they must work inconjunction with alawyer who isamember ofthe
competent barofthehost Member State andwhowould "be,ifnecessarj
responsible tothe court inquestion ,orwith en"avoue "or
"procuratore "practising atthat court .
. •' ■ ' ;' .' :: : ' ■ * .-.i • .•iy J
Article 6
Theprofessional organization inthehost Member State may request
theperson providing the services toestablish his qualifications
asalawyer .Onrequest ,itmay_have thevalidity ofsuch
qualifications confirmed . . .
Intheevent ofabreach ofthemsLes ofprofessional conduct ftfthe he
Member State .,theprofessional organization ofthelatter shall
1
determine inaccordance with itsown rules andprocedure the -r •
consequences ofthis -behaviour ,andtothis endcanobtain
thetransmission ofthe file oftheperson providing services .-
Itshall inform theprofessional organization intheMember State from
which hocomes ,ofanydecision taken .Such communications
dopot alter the confidential character ofthe file ;
" '. '• Article 7 - <- ■"'•1" ''■"
Member States shall bring into force themeasures necesssry to
comply with this Directive within eighteen months ofitsnotifica­
tion and shall forthwith inform theCommission thereof .
Member States shall .communicate totheCommission the texts ofthe
main provisions ofnatipnal (lawwhich they ,adopt inthefield
covered bythis Directive.# ;
Article 8
This Directive isaddressed tothe Member States
Done atBrussels For the Council
The President