Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer v Hans Angerer.
Date: 2015-04-16
26. According to settled case-law, in determining the scope of a provision of EU law, in this case Article 10 of Directive 2005/36, its wording, context and objectives must all be taken into account (judgment in Spedition Welter , C‑306/12, EU:C:2013:650, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
36. As regards the purpose of Directive 2005/36, it is clear from Articles 1 and 4 thereof that the fundamental purpose of mutual recognition is to allow the holder of a professional qualification giving access to a regulated profession in the holder’s home Member State to gain access, in the host Member State, to the same profession as that for which he is qualified in the home Member State, and to practise that profession in the host Member State under the same conditions as its own nationals (judgment in Ordre des architectes , C‑365/13, EU:C:2014:280, paragraph 19).
41. In that connection, the Court held in the judgment in Dreessen (C‑31/00, EU:C:2002:35, paragraphs 27 and 28) that the Member States had to comply with their obligations as regards mutual recognition of professional qualifications, arising from the Court’s interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 53 TFEU, in examining any application for authorisation to pursue the profession of architect if the applicant cannot avail himself of the mechanism for automatic recognition of professional qualifications. That may be the case where, as a result of an error by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, the formal qualification held by the applicant has not been notified to the Commission.
42. Likewise, it follows from the judgment in Hocsman (C‑238/98, EU:C:2000:440, paragraph 23) that Member States must comply with their obligations in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications pursuant to Article 49 TFEU, where the applicant cannot avail himself of the mechanism of recognition of professional qualifications provided for by the relevant directive by reason of the place where the formal qualification concerned was obtained and the applicant’s academic and professional career.
43. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires relating to Directive 2005/36, in particular the Council’s statement of reasons, cited in paragraph 33 of the present judgment, that the situations at issue in the judgments in Hocsman (C‑238/98, EU:C:2000:440) and Dreessen  (C‑31/00, EU:C:2002:35) are, inter alia, the basis for the adoption of Article 10 of that directive. It follows that the ‘specific and exceptional reasons’, referred to in that article, may cover both the circumstances relating to institutional and structural obstacles resulting from the particular situation in the Member State concerned and circumstances related to the applicant’s personal situation.
47. In that connection, it must be recalled that, according to the case-law applicable to Directive 85/384, the domestic law of the host Member State is to define the activities falling within the scope of the field of architecture (see, to that effect, judgment in Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona and Others , C‑111/12, EU:C:2013:100, paragraph 42).