Claus Ramrath v Ministre de la Justice, and l'Institut des réviseurs d'entreprises.
Date: 1992-05-20
17 Furthermore, a comparison of those different provisions shows that they are based on the same principles as regards both the entry into and residence in the territory of the Member States of persons covered by Community law and also the prohibition of all discrimination against them on grounds of nationality.
20 In that respect, according to the settled case-law of the Court (see, for example, the judgments in Case 107/83 Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris v Klopp [1984] ECR 2971, paragraph 19; Case 143/87 Stanton and L' Étoile 1905 v Inasti [1988] ECR 3877, paragraph 11; and Joined Cases 154 and 155/87 RSVZ v Wolf and Others [1988] ECR 3897, paragraph 11), the right of establishment also entails the right to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the rules of professional practice, more than one place of work within the Community.
21 It follows that the right of establishment precludes a Member State from requiring a person practising a profession to have no more than one place of business within the Community.
22 Consequently, the answer to the first question must be that the Treaty provisions on the right of establishment preclude a Member State from prohibiting a person from becoming established in its territory and practising as an auditor there on the grounds that that person is established and authorized to practise in another Member State.
The second and third questions
27 Finally, freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 59 et seq. of the Treaty entails the abolition of all forms of discrimination against a person providing a service by reason inter alia of the fact that he is established in a Member State other than that in which the service is to be provided (see the judgment in Case 279/80 Webb [1981] ECR 3305, paragraph 14).
28 It follows that Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude national legislation which might place Community nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to extend their activities beyond the territory of a single Member State (see the Stanton and Wolf judgments, cited above, paragraph 13 in each case).
29 However, in view of the special nature of certain professional activities, the imposition of specific requirements pursuant to the rules governing such activities cannot be considered incompatible with the Treaty. Nevertheless, as one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty, freedom of movement for persons may be restricted only by rules which are justified in the general interest and are applied to all persons and undertakings pursuing those activities in the territory of the State in question, in so far as that interest is not already safeguarded by the rules to which a Community national is subject in the Member State where he is established (see the judgment in Case C-180/89 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-709, paragraph 17).
30 In addition, such requirements must be objectively justified by the need to ensure that professional rules of conduct are complied with and that the interests which such rules are designed to safeguard are protected (ibid, paragraph 17).
31 It follows that such requirements may be regarded as compatible with the provisions on the free movement of persons only if it is shown that there are, with regard to the activity in question, compelling reasons in the general interest which justify restrictions on freedom of movement, that that interest is not already safeguarded by the rules of the State where the Community national is established, and that the same result cannot be achieved by less restrictive rules.