Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others.
Date: 2013-02-21
35. In that regard, it should be noted that the Court has indeed declined jurisdiction where it was obvious that the provision of European Union law referred to the Court for interpretation was incapable of applying, as, for example, in purely internal situations. However, even in such situations, the Court may carry out the requested interpretation where national law requires the referring court, in cases such as those at issue in the main proceedings, to grant the same rights to a national as those which a national of another Member State in the same situation would derive from European Union law (see, to that effect, inter alia, Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez  [2010] ECR I-4629, paragraph 39; Case C-245/09 Omalet  [2010] ECR I-13771, paragraph 15; and Case C-84/11 Susisalo and Others  [2011] ECR, paragraphs 17 and 20). Therefore, it is clearly in the European Union’s interest that the Court interpret the provision of European Union law at issue.
42. In that respect, Directive 85/384 admittedly does not seek to regulate the conditions of access to the architecture profession or to define the nature of activities to be exercised by architects. It follows from recital 9 in the preamble to that directive that Article 1(2) thereof does not purport to give a legal definition of activities in the field of architecture. It is therefore for the domestic law of the host Member State to define the activities falling within the scope of that field (Order in Mosconi and Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia , paragraph 45).
43. However, contrary to the position expressed by the Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori and the Ordine degli Architetti Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori della Provincia di Verona, it cannot be inferred from that competence of the host Member State that Directive 85/384 authorises that Member State to subject the exercise of activities relating to buildings of artistic interest to an examination of the qualifications of the persons concerned in that field.
44. First, to acknowledge that the host Member State has such a power would amount to authorising it to require additional tests, which would therefore undermine the automatic recognition of diplomas and would, therefore, as the Court pointed out in paragraph 28 of Commission v Portugal , infringe Directive 85/384.
45. Secondly, as is apparent from paragraph 37 of Case C-421/98 Commission  v Spain  [2000] ECR I-10375, according to Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384, when an activity is usually pursued by architects holding a qualification awarded by the host Member State, a migrant architect holding a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications coming within the scope of the directive must also be able to pursue such an activity, even if his diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications is not necessarily substantively equivalent in terms of the training received.
48. Therefore, while it is true that it is for the national legislation of the host Member State to define the field of activities covered by the profession of architect, once an activity is considered by a Member State as coming within that field, the requirement of mutual recognition means that migrant architects must also be able to pursue that activity ( Commission  v Spain , paragraph 38).