Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon and Others.
Date: 2017-05-18
21


In the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU, providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it and, to that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment of 20 October 2016, Danqua, C‑429/15, EU:C:2016:789, paragraph 36).
22


Given that, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, it is not for the Court, in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the compatibility of provisions of national law with EU law (see, inter alia, judgment of 19 March 2015, OTP Bank, C‑672/13, EU:C:2015:185, paragraph 29), it is consequently necessary to construe the question referred by the national court as asking, in essence, whether the refusal to issue a router for RPVA access, issued by the competent authorities of a Member State, to a lawyer duly registered at a Bar of another Member State, on the sole basis that that lawyer is not registered at a Bar of the first Member State in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 77/249 since that refusal constitutes a discriminatory measure liable to impede the practice of his profession as a free provider of services in situations where the obligation to work in conjunction with another lawyer is not imposed by law.
24


In this regard, it has to be borne in mind that all restrictions on the freedom to provide services must be abolished, pursuant to Article 56 TFEU, in order, in particular, to enable a person providing a service to pursue his activity in the State in which the service is provided under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals, to use the wording of the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 1991, Commission v France, C‑294/89, EU:C:1991:302, paragraph 25).
25


That latter provision has been clarified, in the area of the exercise by lawyers of the freedom to provide services, by Directive 77/249, Article 4(1) of which provides that the activity of representing a client in legal proceedings in another Member State must be pursued ‘under the conditions laid down for lawyers established in that State’, with the exception of ‘any conditions requiring residence, or registration with a professional organisation, in that State’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 December 2003, AMOK, C‑289/02, EU:C:2003:669, paragraph 29).
26


Moreover, according to the settled case-law of the Court, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of any national rules which, without objective justification, restrict the freedom of a service provider to provide services (see judgment of 14 January 2016, Commission v Greece, C‑66/15, not published, EU:C:2016:5, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). Restrictions on the freedom to provide services are national measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom (see judgment of 14 January 2016, Commission v Greece, C‑66/15, not published, EU:C:2016:5, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
30


However, account being taken of the particular nature of the services of persons who are not established in the Member State in which those services are to be provided, the requirement, with regard to lawyers, that the person concerned must already be duly registered at a local Bar in order to access the service of dematerialisation of proceedings cannot be considered contrary to Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU, provided that that requirement is objectively necessary in order to protect the public interest linked, in particular, to the proper administration of justice (see, by analogy, judgment of 3 December 1974, van Binsbergen, 33/74, EU:C:1974:131, paragraphs 11, 12 and 14). That is the context in which Directive 77/249 has to be interpreted (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 February 1988, Commission v Germany, 427/85, EU:C:1988:98, paragraph 13).
31


Moreover, it is evident from well-established case-law of the Court that national measures which are liable to restrict or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty may nonetheless be permitted, provided that they serve overriding reasons in the public interest, are appropriate for attaining their objective and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 December 2006, Cipolla and Others, C‑94/04 and C‑202/04, EU:C:2006:758, paragraph 61, and of 11 December 2014, Commission v Spain, C‑678/11, EU:C:2014:2434, paragraph 42), on the understanding that national legislation will be appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective relied upon only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain that objective in a consistent and systematic manner (see judgment of 13 February 2014, Sokoll-Seebacher, C‑367/12, EU:C:2014:68, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
34


In that regard, it must be recalled that, first, the protection of consumers, in particular recipients of legal services provided by persons involved in the administration of justice and, second, the proper administration of justice are objectives which feature among those which may be regarded as overriding requirements in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 December 2006, Cipolla and Others, C‑94/04 and C‑202/04, EU:C:2006:758, paragraph 64).