Case C-345/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — Krzysztof Peśla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 EC — Refusal of access to serve as a legal trainee — Candidate who obtained his law diploma in another Member State — Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of knowledge acquired)
Date: 2009-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, examination, interpretation of the law, magistrate, occupational status, professional qualifications, vocational training








C_2010024EN.01001002.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — Krzysztof Peśla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
(Case C-345/08) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 39 EC - Refusal of access to serve as a legal trainee - Candidate who obtained his law diploma in another Member State - Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of knowledge acquired)
2010/C 24/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Krzysztof Peśla

Defendant: Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Decision refusing access to the period of preparatory legal training for the regulated legal professions addressed to a candidate who obtained his legal diploma in another Member State — Criteria for assessment of the equivalence of education and training.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the knowledge to be taken as a reference point for the purposes of assessing the equivalence of training following an application for direct admission to a legal traineeship for the legal professions, without taking the exams he would otherwise have to sit, is that attested by the qualification required in the Member State in which the candidate seeks to be admitted to serve such a legal traineeship.










2.


Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of a Member State consider an application of a national of another Member State to be admitted to serve a practical training period, such as a legal traineeship for the legal professions in Germany, with a view to exercising a regulated legal profession at a later date, that article does not of itself oblige those authorities to require from the candidate, in the examination of equivalence required by Community law, merely a level of legal knowledge which is lower than that attested by the qualification required in that Member State for access to such a period of practical training. However, Article 39 EC does not preclude a degree of flexibility as regards the qualification required. Moreover it is important that, in practice, the possibility of partial recognition of the knowledge attested by qualifications which the person concerned has obtained should be more than merely notional. That is a matter for the national court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.