Case C-506/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative, Luxembourg) — Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Freedom of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained — Conditions for registration with the competent authority in the host Member State — Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State — Remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with domestic law)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative court, capacity to exercise rights, equivalence of diplomas, interpretation of the law, lawyer, use of languages

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/11

of the obligation to keep stock accounts for producers with
reference quantities for direct sales — Additional obligations
imposed by a Member State — Question not posed by the
national court — No reply given by the Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Graham J. Wilson

Operative part of the judgment

Defendant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

1. The first sentence of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the
application of the additional levy on milk and milk products must
be interpreted as conferring discretion on a Member State to lay
down rules, in so far as is necessary, imposing on producers of
milk established in its territory supplementary obligations to keep
records which are more extensive than the obligations under
Article 7(1)(f). In exercising that discretion, the Member State
must comply with the general principles of Community law.

2. Community law does not preclude legislation which requires milk
producers to keep records of the quantity of butter produced and
the use that it has been put to, even where the butter has been
destroyed or used as feeding stuff, where, in the Member State
concerned, it is found to be difficult to monitor effectively, on the
basis of the Community requirements alone, the accuracy of state-
ments of direct sales drawn up by producers.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
administrative, Luxembourg) — Graham J. Wilson v Ordre
des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

(Case C-506/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice
of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Member State other than that in which the qualification was
obtained — Conditions for registration with the competent
authority in the host Member State — Prior examination of
knowledge of the languages of the host Member State —
in accordance with
Remedy before a court or

tribunal

domestic law)

(2006/C 281/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative
(Luxembourg) — Interpretation of 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 qualifica-
tion was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Obligation to
provide for a remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance
with the provisions of domestic law against a decision refusing
entry on the Bar register as a lawyer practising under his
home-country professional title — Appeal to the Conseil disci-
legislation
plinaire et adminsitratif du barreau — National
making registration conditional on an oral
examination
intended to verify knowledge of the official languages of the
host Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 9 of 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 must be
interpreted as meaning that it precludes an appeal procedure in
which the decision refusing registration, referred to in Article 3 of
that directive, must be challenged at first instance before a body
composed exclusively of lawyers practising under the professional
title of the host Member State and on appeal before a body
composed for the most part of such lawyers, where the appeal
before the supreme court of that Member State permits judicial
review of the law only and not the facts.

2) Article 3 of Directive 98/5 must be interpreted as meaning that
the registration of a lawyer with the competent authority of a
Member State other than the State where he obtained his qualifi-
cation in order to practise there under his home-country profes-
sional title cannot be made subject to a prior examination of his
proficiency in the languages of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.