Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-294/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Scope of Directive 92/51/EEC — National legislation reserving medical practice, including the activities which Heilpraktikers are permitted to pursue in Germany, to qualified doctors — National legislation restricting medical training to certain institutions and prohibiting advertising for such training)
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health policy, interpretation of the law, paramedical profession, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, vocational training

28.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 233/9

in the situation where an exporter completes an application for
export refunds in good faith on the basis of incorrect information
supplied by the manufacturer of the exported goods, and he
could not have discovered the inaccuracy of the information or
could have done so only by means of checks at the factory where
the goods were manufactured. Fault on the part of a co-
contractor is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be
regarded as unforeseeable in the context of commercial trans-
actions, the exporter having various means at his disposal to
protect himself against such an eventuality.

( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

11 July 2002

in Case C-294/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen
für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (1)

education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
J. Mischo, Advocate
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:

Judges;

1. No provision of Community law, as it presently stands,
precludes a Member State from restricting the exercise of an
activity such as that of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
the German legislation to holders of a doctor’s qualification.

2. Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude

— a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
of the activity of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
the German legislation by persons other than those with
a doctor’s qualification from likewise prohibiting the
organisation in its territory of training in that activity by
unauthorised institutions, provided that that prohibition
is applied in such a way that it covers only training of a
kind liable to create confusion in the minds of the public
as to whether the profession of Heilpraktiker may lawfully
be exercised in the territory of the Member State in which
the training is to take place;

(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services
— Scope of Directive 92/51/EEC — National legislation
reserving medical practice, including the activities which
Heilpraktikers are permitted to pursue in Germany, to
qualified doctors — National legislation restricting medical
training to certain institutions and prohibiting advertising
for such training)

— a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
of the activity of a Heilpraktiker by persons other than
those with a doctor’s qualification and prohibits training
in that activity from likewise prohibiting the advertising
of such training offered in its territory if that advertising
concerns training of a kind which is prohibited in that
Member State in accordance with the Treaty.

(2002/C 233/13)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

However, Article 59 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the profession of
Heilpraktiker and training in the activity of a Heilpraktiker
from likewise prohibiting the advertising of such training offered
in a different Member State, if that advertising states where the
training is to take place and mentions the fact that the
profession of Heilpraktiker may not be exercised in the first
Member State.

In Case C-294/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH
and Kurt Gräbner, on the interpretation of Articles 52 and 59
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 and 49
EC) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional

(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.