Jean Thieffry v Conseil de l'ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris.
Date: 1977-04-28
12 THAT ARTICLE IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TOWARDS RECONCILING FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RULES JUSTIFIED BY THE GENERAL GOOD , IN PARTICULAR RULES RELATING TO ORGANIZATION , QUALIFICATIONS , PROFESSIONAL ETHICS , SUPERVISION AND LIABILITY , PROVIDED THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS EFFECTED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION .

THIEFFRY V CONSEIL DE L ' ORDRE DES AVOCATS A LA COUR DE PARIS
13 IN THE GENERAL PROGRAMME FOR THE ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT , ADOPTED ON 18 DECEMBER 1961 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE TREATY , THE COUNCIL PROPOSED TO ELIMINATE NOT ONLY OVERT DISCRIMINATION , BUT ALSO ANY FORM OF DISGUISED DISCRIMINATION , BY DESIGNATING IN TITLE III ( B ) AS RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE ELIMINATED , ' ANY REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED , PURSUANT TO ANY PROVISION LAID DOWN BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE , IN RESPECT OF THE TAKING UP OR PURSUIT OF AN ACTIVITY AS A SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON WHERE , ALTHOUGH APPLICABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF NATIONALITY , THEIR EFFECT IS EXCLUSIVELY OR PRINCIPALLY TO HINDER THE TAKING UP OR PURSUIT OF SUCH ACTIVITY BY FOREIGN NATIONALS '  ( OJ , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION , SECOND SERIES , IX , P . 8 ).
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISIONS CITED TAKEN AS A WHOLE THAT FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT , SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF PROFESSIONAL RULES JUSTIFIED BY THE GENERAL GOOD , IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY .
16 IN SO FAR AS COMMUNITY LAW MAKES NO SPECIAL PROVISION , THESE OBJECTIVES MAY BE ATTAINED BY MEASURES ENACTED BY THE MEMBER STATES , WHICH UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY ARE BOUND TO TAKE ' ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES , WHETHER GENERAL OR PARTICULAR , TO ENSURE FULFILMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THIS TREATY OR RESULTING FROM ACTION TAKEN BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ' , AND TO ABSTAIN ' FROM ANY MEASURE WHICH COULD JEOPARDIZE THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS TREATY ' .
17 CONSEQUENTLY , IF THE FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 52 CAN BE ENSURED IN A MEMBER STATE EITHER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE , OR BY VIRTUE OF THE PRACTICES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR OF PROFESSIONAL BODIES , A PERSON SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW CANNOT BE DENIED THE PRACTICAL BENEFIT OF THAT FREEDOM SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT , FOR A PARTICULAR PROFESSION , THE DIRECTIVES PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 57 OF THE TREATY HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADOPTED .
19 IN PARTICULAR , THERE IS AN UNJUSTIFIED RESTRICTION ON THAT FREEDOM WHERE , IN A MEMBER STATE , ADMISSION TO A PARTICULAR PROFESSION IS REFUSED TO A PERSON COVERED BY THE TREATY WHO HOLDS A DIPLOMA WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT AND WHO FURTHERMORE HAS FULFILLED THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS REGARDING PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN FORCE IN THAT COUNTRY , SOLELY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED DOES NOT POSSESS THE NATIONAL DIPLOMA CORRESPONDING TO THE DIPLOMA WHICH HE HOLDS AND WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATION .
27 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT SHOULD BE THAT WHEN A NATIONAL OF ONE MEMBER STATE DESIROUS OF EXERCISING A PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY SUCH AS THE PROFESSION OF ADVOCATE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE HAS OBTAINED A DIPLOMA IN HIS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT AND WHICH HAS THUS ENABLED HIM TO SIT AND PASS THE SPECIAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION FOR THE PROFESSION IN QUESTION , THE ACT OF DEMANDING THE NATIONAL DIPLOMA PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTES , EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DIRECTIVES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 57 , A RESTRICTION INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 52 OF THE TREATY .