4.

Let us now return to the point at issue. Stripped of its inessentials, the problem which the Court has to resolve is the following: Can a citizen of a Member State, who has obtained in another Member State one of the qualifications listed in Directive No 78/1026, automatically practise veterinary medicine in his own State? Article 2 of that directive provides that “each Member State shall recognize the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications awarded ... by the other Member States in accordance with Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027/EEC and which are listed in Article 3, by giving such qualifications, as far as the right to take up and pursue the activities of a veterinary surgeon is concerned, the same effect in its territory as those which the Member State itself awards.” The qualification obtained by Mr Auer at Parma — “diploma di laurea di dottore accompagnato dal diploma di abilitazione all'esercizio della medicina veterinaria” [Diploma of Doctor accompanied by a practising certificate in veterinary medicine] appears in Article 3 (f). Consequently, if it was awarded “in accordance with Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027”, France must recognize that it has the effect attributed to the diploma of “Docteur — Vétérinaire d'État” [State diploma of doctorveterinary surgeon] referred to under (d) of the same provision. However, was the diploma in question “awarded in accordance” with the said article within the meaning of the provision? The minimum standards of professional training which Article 1 requires of holders of the diplomas listed in Directive No 78/1026 are described in extremely general terms (as, moreover, are those for the medical profession which appear in Directive No 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975). It does not therefore seem possible to determine, in practice, whether a qualification has been awarded “in accordance with Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027”, even with the help of expert opinion. However it does not follow that the Court is impotent. The qualifications awarded after the adoption of that directive are presumed to be in conformity inasmuch as the States are under an obligation to require that the qualification covers the knowledge and the experience set out in Article 1. The second paragraph of Article 2 of Directive No 78/1026 clarifies the position in respect of qualifications awarded prior to the implementation of the directive: it provides that the diploma “shall be accompanied by a certificate from the competent authorities of the issuing country stating that it complies with Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027/EEC.” In the course of the oral procedure, there was produced on behalf of Dr Auer a certificate issued on 3 December 1982 by the Director of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Parma. That certificate states that the diploma of doctor and the practising certificate obtained by Auer in 1956 and in 1980 comply with Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027. The civil parties, who were allowed a certain amount of time for the consideration of that document, do not dispute the competence of the authority which issued it. However, they maintain that the Court should disregard it inasmuch as it was issued after the dates (January and June 1981) of the acts with which Dr Auer was charged. I do not find that view convincing. It presupposes that the issuing of the certificate referred to in the second paragraph of Article 2 gives rise to the right to practise veterinary medicine ex nunc. Yet there is no doubt — and in any event it may be inferred from the first paragraph of the same article — that the existence of that right is dependent exclusively on the awarding of the diploma. The certificate merely provides documentary evidence that the diploma, awarded at an earlier date, is (and has always been) in conformity with Directive No 78/1027. It follows that the holder of the diploma could lawfully engage in the practice of veterinary medicine from the date on which the Member States were required to have adopted provisions implementing the two directives. The period for complying with that obligation expired on 20 December 1980 and therefore before the events giving rise to the criminal proceedings against Dr Auer occurred. That is not the only objection which the civil parties base on Article 1 of Directive No 78/1027. It is contended on their behalf that a person who finds himself in the position of Dr Auer must prove before the national court that he meets all the requirements stipulated by that provision. In their view that argument is supported by Article 15 of Directive No 78/1026, according to which “when it has grounds for doubt, the host Member State may require of the competent authorities of another Member State confirmation of the authenticity of the diplomas ... awarded (in that other Member State) ... and also confirmation of the fact that the person concerned has fulfilled all the training requirements laid down in Directive No 78/1027/EEC”. Once again I do not agree. I consider that two points clearly result from the wording of that provision. In the first place, it applies only where a Member State has grounds for doubt. It did not however emerge before the Court that the French Government had any doubts as to the authenticity or the value of the degree awarded to Dr Auer (for the interpretation of a provision containing a similar formula, see -judgment of 22 March 1983, Case 42/82 Commission v France [1983] ECR 1013, paragraph 32 of the decision). Secondly, even if there are doubts, it is the State which entertains them which has the duty to take all appropriate steps. Article 15 authorizes it to demand certain confirmations; it does not require individuals to furnish proof before the national courts.