14.

Let us suppose that the national court decides, in the light of the foregoing, that a national provision such as the one we are considering falls within the scope of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty when invoked against the nationals of another Member State finding themselves in a position similar to that of Mr Kraus. The question then arises whether Mr Kraus can also invoke the prohibition against discrimination contained in that article against his own Member State. On this point, I would first observe according to the Court's judgment in the Bouboucha case ( 20 ) of 3 October 1990 a situation such as that now before the Court cannot be regarded as a matter purely internal to a Member State, since it concerns, in the present case (as it did in the Bouboucha case), a national of the Member State concerned who holds a professional diploma awarded in another Member State. The Court held in Knoors, ( 21 ) on the subject of a vocational qualification within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 64/427/EEC, ( 22 ) awarded to a Netherlands national in Belgium, that a national a Member State could invoke in his Member State of origin a vocational qualification awarded in another Member State, with a view to obtaining permission to pursue his occupation in the plumbing business, which is regulated in the former State. Having regard to the fundamental character of the freedoms enshrined in Articles 3(c), 48, 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty, the Court held in paragraphs 24 and 25, specifically in relation to Article 52: ‘Although it is true that the provisions of the Treaty relating to establishment and the provision of services cannot be applied to situations which are purely internal to a Member State, the position nevertheless remains that the reference in Article 52 to “nationals of a Member State” who wish to establish themselves “in the territory of another Member State” cannot be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the benefit of Community law a given Member State's own nationals when the latter, owing to the fact that they have lawfully resided on the territory of another Member State and have there acquired a trade qualification which is recognized by the provisions of Community law, are, with regard to their State of origin, in a situation which may be assimilated to that of any other persons enjoying the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty. ... however, it is not possible to disregard the legitimate interest which a Member State may have in preventing certain of its nationals, by means of facilities created under the Treaty, from attempting wrongly to evade the application of their national legislation as regards training for a trade’. Given that, in the circumstances, all risk of improper use was excluded, the Court concluded that nationals of the Member State regulating the exercise of a trade were also ‘beneficiaries’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 64/427. The essential consideration is, however, that in the matter of free movement of persons Community law applies equally to a Member State's own nationals — even in a situation purely internal to a Member State (which is not even the case in this instance) — when they find themselves ‘in a situation in relation to [their] own country of origin similar to that of all other persons who avail themselves of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty.’ ( 23 ) In the present case, Mr Kraus finds himself in a situation similar to that of a national of another Member State, who, as shown above, could derive certain rights from the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 48(2) of the EEC Treaty.