GROUP TREATMENT IDENTICAL TO THAT RESERVED TO THEIR OWN NATIONALS .
15 HOWEVER , THE FOREGOING CONCLUSION LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION WHETHER NATIONALS OF AN ACP STATE MAY BE ENTITLED , UNDER THE RULES AS TO NON-DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 62 OF THE LOME CONVENTION , TO INVOKE THE PARTICULAR ADVANTAGES ACCORDED IN MATTERS OF ESTABLISHMENT BY A MEMBER STATE TO OTHER ACP STATES .
16 INDEED , IT EMERGES FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT , AT THE REQUEST OF THE COURT , THAT THE FRENCH REPUBLIC HAS CONCLUDED WITH A SMALL NUMBER OF ACP STATES ESTABLISHMENT CONVENTIONS OR JUDICIAL CONVENTIONS BASED ON RECIPROCAL APPLICATION OF NATIONAL TREATMENT .
17 IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT A JUDICIAL CONVENTION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL TREATMENT IN MATTERS OF ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVOCATES HITHERTO EXISTED BETWEEN THE FRENCH REPUBLIC AND THE MALAGASY REPUBLIC , BUT THAT ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE LATTER STATE , THOSE PROVISIONS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REPLACED BY A CONVENTION LIMITED , AS FAR AS ADVOCATES ARE CONCERNED , TO FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN SPECIFIC CASES .
18 THE EXISTENCE OF THESE PARTICULAR ARRANGEMENTS , IN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE FRENCH REPUBLIC AND CERTAIN OF THE ACP STATES , RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RULE AS TO NON-DICRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 62 OF THE LOME CONVENTION SHOULD BE READ AS PROVIDING FOR THE SAME TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO A MADAGASCAN NATIONAL IN FRANCE AS THAT GIVEN TO NATIONALS OF THOSE ACP STATES WHICH ARE SO FAVOURED .
19 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION , IT SUFFICES TO FIND THAT IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE RULE AS TO NON-DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 62 FOR A MEMBER STATE TO RESERVE MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT TO THE NATIONALS OF ONE ACP-STATE , PROVIDED THAT SUCH TREATMENT RESULTS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT COMPRISING RECIPROCAL RIGHTS AND ADVANTAGES .
20 THEREFORE THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD BE THAT ARTICLE 62 OF THE LOME CONVENTION DOES NOT GIVE A NATIONAL OF AN ACP STATE THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH HIMSELF IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE WITHOUT ANY CONDITION AS TO NATIONALITY , IN SO FAR AS THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE PROFESSIONS RESERVED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE TO ITS OWN NATIONALS IS CONCERNED .
THE SECOND QUESTION
21 A REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION , WHICH AIMS TO SPECIFY THE SCOPE OF THE RESERVATION CONTAINED IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 62 OF THE LOME CONVENTION , WOULD BE NECESSARY ONLY IF THE EFFECT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SAID ARTICLE HAD BEEN TO GIVE NATIONAL TREATMENT TO THE NATIONALS OF ACP STATES , IN REGARD TO PROFESSION AT ISSUE .
22 IN THE EVENT , SUCH IS NOT THE CASE , AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO NEED TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION .
Decision on costs
COSTS
23 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,