Criminal proceedings against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision Belgium SA, being civilly liable, intervener: Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire.
Date: 2001-02-01
16 In this regard, it is clear from the observations submitted to the Court and from the details provided at the hearing that Grandvision is a limited-liability company which was established under Belgian law in 1990 under the name Vision Express Belgium SA by the Netherlands company VE Holdings BV. As a subsidiary of Vision Express UK Ltd, a company governed by English law, it belongs to a group of companies established in various Member States which markets products and services in the optics sector. The legal position of such a company comes within the scope of Community law pursuant to the provisions of Article 52 of the Treaty.
18 As to that, where there are actual or apparent differences in analysis between the administrative or judicial authorities of a Member State regarding the proper construction of national legislation, particularly in respect of its exact scope, it is not for the Court to rule on which interpretation is in accordance, or most in accordance, with Community law. On the other hand, the Court is required to interpret Community law with regard to a factual and legal situation such as that described by the referring court, in order to provide that court with such guidance as will assist it in resolving the dispute before it.
The questions submitted for preliminary ruling
24 While it is true that, in the absence of harmonisation of the activities at issue in the main proceedings, Member States remain, in principle, competent to define the exercise of those activities, they must none the less, when exercising their powers in this area, respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see Joined Cases C-193/97 and C-194/97 De Castro Freitas and Escallier [1998] ECR I-6747, paragraph 23, and judgment of 3 October 2000 in Case C-58/98 Corsten [2000] ECR I-7919, paragraph 31).
25 The second paragraph of Article 52 of the Treaty provides that freedom of establishment is to be exercised under the conditions which the legislation of the country of establishment lays down for its own nationals. It follows that, where the taking-up or pursuit of a specific activity is subject to such conditions in the host Member State, a national of another Member State intending to pursue that activity must in principle comply with those conditions (Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 36).
26 According to the Court's case-law, however, national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty can be justified only if they fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by overriding reasons based on the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, in particular, judgments in Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, in Gebhard, cited above, paragraph 37, and, most recently, of 4 July 2000 in Case C-424/97 Haim [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph 57).
28 Next, with regard to the question whether there are overriding reasons based on the general interest which may justify the restriction on freedom of establishment resulting from the prohibition under challenge, it must be remembered that the protection of public health is one of the reasons which may, under Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46(1) EC), justify restrictions resulting from special treatment for foreign nationals. Protection of public health is therefore, in principle, also capable of justifying national measures which apply indiscriminately, such as those in this case.
33 It should be borne in mind in this regard that the fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State does not mean that the latter's rules are disproportionate and hence incompatible with Community law (Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments [1995] ECR I-1141, paragraph 51, and Case C-3/95 Reisebüro Broede [1996] ECR I-6511, paragraph 42).
34 The mere fact that a Member State has chosen a system of protection different from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the appraisal as to the need for and proportionality of the provisions adopted (Case C-67/98 Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289, paragraph 34).