European Commission v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2011-05-24
69. Article 43 EC is one of the fundamental provisions of European Union law (see, to that effect, inter alia, Reyners , paragraph 43).
70. The concept of establishment within the meaning of that provision is a very broad one, allowing a national of the European Union to participate, on a stable and continuous basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom, so contributing to economic and social interpenetration within the European Union in the sphere of activities of self-employed persons (see, inter alia, Case C‑161/07 Commission  v Austria  [2008] ECR I‑10671, paragraph 24).
71. The freedom of establishment conferred on nationals of one Member State in the territory of another Member State includes in particular access to and exercise of activities of self-employed persons under the same conditions as are laid down by the law of the Member State of establishment for its own nationals (see, inter alia, Case 270/83 Commission  v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 13, and, to that effect, Commission  v Austria , paragraph 27). In other words, Article 43 EC prohibits the Member States from laying down in their laws conditions for the pursuit of activities by persons exercising their right of establishment there which differ from those laid down for its own nationals ( Commission  v Austria , paragraph 28).
72. Article 43 EC is thus intended to ensure that all nationals of all Member States who establish themselves in another Member State for the purpose of pursuing activities there as self-employed persons receive the same treatment as nationals of that State, and it prohibits, as a restriction on freedom of establishment, any discrimination on grounds of nationality resulting from national legislation ( Commission  v France , paragraph 14).
75. As regards the concept of the ‘exercise of official authority’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, the assessment of that concept must take account, in accordance with settled case-law, of the character as European Union law of the limits imposed by that provision on the permitted exceptions to the principle of freedom of establishment, so as to ensure that the effectiveness of the Treaty in the field of freedom of establishment is not frustrated by unilateral provisions of the Member States (see, to that effect, Reyners , paragraph 50; Case 147/86 Commission  v Greece , paragraph 8; and Case C‑438/08 Commission  v Portugal [2009] ECR I‑10219, paragraph 35)
76. It is also settled case-law that the first paragraph of Article 45 EC is an exception to the fundamental rule of freedom of establishment. As such, the exception must be interpreted in a manner which limits its scope to what is strictly necessary to safeguard the interests it allows the Member States to protect (Case 147/86 Commission v Greece , paragraph 7; Commission  v Spain , paragraph 34; Case C‑451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti [2006] ECR I‑2941, paragraph 45; Case C‑393/05 Commission  v Austria  [2007] ECR I‑10195, paragraph 35; Case C‑404/05 Commission  v Germany  [2007] ECR I‑10239, paragraphs 37 and 46; and Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 34).
77. In addition, the Court has repeatedly held that the exception in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC must be restricted to activities which in themselves are directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority ( Reyners , paragraph 45; Thijssen , paragraph 8; Commission  v Spain , paragraph 35; Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti , paragraph 46; Commission  v Germany , paragraph 38; and Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 36).
78. In this respect, the Court has had occasion to rule that the exception in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC does not extend to certain activities that are auxiliary or preparatory to the exercise of official authority (see, to that effect, Thijssen , paragraph 22; Commission  v Spain , paragraph 38; Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti , paragraph 47; Commission  v Germany , paragraph 38, and Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 36), or to certain activities whose exercise, although involving contacts, even regular and organic, with the administrative or judicial authorities, or indeed cooperation, even compulsory, in their functioning, leaves their discretionary and decision-making powers intact (see, to that effect, Reyners , paragraphs 51 and 53), or to certain activities which do not involve the exercise of decision-making powers (see, to that effect, Thijssen,  paragraphs 21 and 22; Case C‑393/05 Commission  v Austria , paragraphs 36 and 42; Commission  v Germany , paragraphs 38 and 44; and Commission  v Portugal , paragraphs 36 and 41), powers of constraint (see, to that effect, inter alia, Commission  v Spain , paragraph 37) or powers of coercion (see, to that effect, Case C‑47/02 Anker and Others  [2003] ECR I‑10447, paragraph 61, and Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 44).
80. Account must be taken of the nature of the activities carried out by the members of the profession at issue (see, to that effect, Thijssen , paragraph 9).
99. The tasks entrusted to notaries in relation to enforcement are therefore subject to the supervision of the court, to which the notary must refer any legal challenges and which, moreover, makes the ultimate decision. Consequently, those tasks cannot be regarded, in themselves, as directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority (see, to that effect, Thijssen , paragraph 21; Case 395/05 Commission  v Austria , paragraphs 41 and 42; Commission  v Germany , paragraphs 43 and 44, and Commission  v Portugal , paragraphs 37 and 41).
101. It must further be added, as regards the notarial activities mentioned in paragraphs 97 to 100 of this judgment, that, as was stated in paragraph 78 above, professional services involving assistance, even when obligatory, to the operation of courts or tribunals do not thereby constitute a connection with the exercise of official authority ( Reyners , paragraph 51).
102. Second, as regards the notary’s involvement in cases of non‑acceptance or non‑payment of bills or cheques, it must be observed, as expressly acknowledged by the Hellenic Republic, that that intervention, consisting of noting a protest, constitutes the preparatory stage of either an enforcement or proceedings before the courts. However, preparatory activities for the exercise of official authority are, in accordance with settled case-law, excluded from the derogation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC (see, to that effect, Thijssen , paragraph 22; Commission  v Spain , paragraph 38; Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti , paragraph 47; Commission  v Germany , paragraph 38, and Commission  v Portugal , paragraph 36).
122. It is settled case-law that, in the context of proceedings under Article 226 EC, the existence of a failure to fulfil obligations must be assessed in the light of the European Union legislation in force at the close of the period prescribed by the Commission for the Member State concerned to comply with its reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C‑365/97 Commission  v Italy [1999] ECR I‑7773, paragraph 32; Case C‑275/04 Commission  v Belgium [2006] ECR I‑9883, paragraph 34; and Case C‑270/07 Commission  v Germany [2009] ECR I‑1983, paragraph 49).