21 HOWEVER, THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT CONVINCING . BY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF THE HOST MEMBER STATE THE DIRECTIVE ASSUMES THAT THE PERSON PROVIDING THE SERVICES HAS THE CAPACITY TO COMPLY WITH THOSE RULES . IF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE HOST MEMBER STATE HAS ALREADY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING ACCESS TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION THAT THAT PERSON LACKS SUCH CAPACITY SO THAT HE IS BARRED FROM ACCESS TO THE PROFESSION ON THAT GROUND, HE MUST BE CONSIDERED NOT TO SATISFY THE VERY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE DIRECTIVE WITH REGARD TO FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES .
22 IT FOLLOWS THAT DIRECTIVE 77/249 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT ITS PROVISIONS MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON BY A LAWYER ESTABLISHED IN ONE MEMBER STATE WITH A VIEW TO PURSUING HIS ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHERE HE HAD BEEN BARRED FROM ACCESS TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE LATTER MEMBER STATE FOR REASONS RELATING TO DIGNITY, GOOD REPUTE AND INTEGRITY .
23 IN VIEW OF THAT REPLY IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE RECOURSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN ORDER TO REFUSE TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO A LAWYER ESTABLISHED IN ONE MEMBER STATE WHO HAS BEEN DENIED ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE HOST MEMBER STATE ON THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULES RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL ETHICS .
THE RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT
24 THE SECOND QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE COUR D' APPEL RELATES TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 52 OF THE EEC TREATY . THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED, MORE SPECIFICALLY, TO THE POINT WHETHER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAWYER IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT PROVISION PRESUPPOSES HIS REGISTRATION AT A BAR OF THE HOST MEMBER STATE WHERE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE . IF THE REPLY TO THAT QUESTION IS IN THE NEGATIVE, THE COUR D' APPEL ALSO RAISES A QUESTION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 77/249 TO A LAWYER WHO IS NOT REGISTERED .
25 AS A PRELIMINARY POINT IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE MORE PRECISELY THE SCOPE OF THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT IN VIEW, IN PARTICULAR, OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED BEFORE IT .
26 THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTUAL SITUATION WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS MAY APPEAR AMBIGUOUS INASMUCH AS A PERSON ESTABLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AS A "RECHTSANWALT" ALSO OPENED AN OFFICE AS A "JURISCONSULTE" IN FRANCE; IT MIGHT THEREFORE BE ASKED, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION, WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS NOT ALREADY "ESTABLISHED" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURSUING HIS ACTIVITIES IN FRANCE SO THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO HIM . HOWEVER, IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COUR D' APPEL AND THE QUESTION