CELEX: C2000/233/34
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-222/00: Action brought on 5 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

C 233/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Action brought on 5 June 2000 by the Commission of the                   to the objective pursued. However, the obligation of forwar-
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                     ding, in respect of each admission, documents which the
                                                                         Provincial Architects Council already has in its possession (for
                                                                         example, the diploma) is an additional burden which runs
                         (Case C-222/00)                                 counter to Article 22(4) of the directive where such documents
                                                                         are less than 12 months old. Moreover, the Belgian rules
                         (2000/C 233/34)                                 cannot require payment of a registration fee of BEF 6 000 by
                                                                         architects established in a Member State other than Belgium
                                                                         who register on the ‘special register’ since the third paragraph
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before              of Article 22(1) clearly requires that such registration should
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June               take place without any additional costs. Those rules also
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      infringe Article 49 EC.
represented by Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                (The second plea in law alleging that the principle of provision
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       of a ‘single service’ is being applied)
                                                                         The Belgian Government states that that principle is no longer
The applicant claims that the Court should                               applied; it is however not disputed that a mere circular
                                                                         — which has moreover never been communicated to the
1.    Declare that,                                                      Commission — is not sufficient to bring to an end the legal
                                                                         uncertainty arising from the lack of binding legislation in that
                                                                         respect.
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes
            registration of architects lawfully established in
            another Member State on the ‘special register’ of            (The third plea in law alleging that admission to the register
            architects providing their services, as provided for in      was refused on the ground that the principle that the activities
            Article 22(1) of Directive 85/334/EEC(1), subject to         of architects and contractors are mutually incompatible was
            production of the documents listed in Article 22(3)          not observed)
            even where those documents have already been
            communicated less than 12 months previously and
            to the payment of registration fees;                         The directive does not preclude a Member State from making
                                                                         the profession of architect incompatible with that of building
                                                                         contractor or trader in construction materials and requiring
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes it           compliance from architects established in another Member
            impossible for architects established in Member              State who provide services in the first Member State. However,
            States other than Belgium to provide several services        in order to ensure compliance, the administration has available
            simultaneously within Belgium;                               means which are less restrictive than the requirement to
                                                                         amend the statutes of the architect’s firm consultation of the
      —     by making admission to the register of service               agreement between the client and the architect should be
            providers of an architect established in a Member            sufficient in that regard.
            State who wishes to provide services in Belgium
            subject to amendment of the statutes of that archi-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15.
            tect’s firm without ascertaining beforehand whether
            that architect was in a position to comply in
            Belgium with Belgian rules prohibiting persons
            from simultaneously practising as architects and
            contractors;
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the abovementioned directive.                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                         Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção by or-
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     der of that court of 10 May 1999 in the case of Director-
                                                                         Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social
                                                                         Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de
                                                                                                     Serviços SA
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (Case C-223/00)
(The first plea in law alleging that admission to the register is                                  (2000/C 233/35)
not practically automatic)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Notification of the provision of services must not be made               European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
subject to conditions which are disproportionate or unrelated            Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção (First Sub-Chamber