Dieter Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 1993-03-31
15 Although the provisions in the Treaty relating to freedom of movement for persons do not apply to situations which are purely internal to a Member State, the Court has already held that Article 52 of the Treaty may not be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the benefit of Community law the nationals of a given Member State when, owing to the fact that they have lawfully resided on the territory of another Member State and have there acquired a vocational qualification which is recognized under Community law, they are, with regard to their State of origin, in a situation which may be assimilated to that of any other persons enjoying the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty (see judgments in Case 115/78 Knoors v Staatssecretaris voor Economische Zaken [1979] ECR 399, paragraph 24, and in Case 61/89 Bouchoucha [1990] ECR I-3551, paragraph 13).
16 The same reasoning must be followed as regards Article 48 of the Treaty. In its judgment in Knoors, cited above (paragraph 20), the Court held that freedom of movement for workers and the right of establishment guaranteed by Article 48 and 52 of the Treaty were fundamental rights in the Community system, and would not be fully realized if the Member States were able to refuse to grant the benefit of the provisions of Community law to those of their nationals who had taken advantage of its provisions to acquire vocational qualifications in a Member State other than that of which they were nationals.
17 The same consideration applies where a national of a Member State has obtained in another Member State a university qualification which supplements his basic education and training and of which he intends to make use after he returns to his country of origin.
18 Although a postgraduate academic title is not usually a prerequisite for access to a profession, either as an employee or on or on a self-employed basis, the possession of such a title nevertheless constitutes, for the person entitled to make use of it, an advantage for the purpose both of gaining entry to such a profession and of prospering in it.
19 Accordingly, in so far as it constitutes proof of possession of an additional professional qualification and thereby confirms its holder' s fitness for a particular post, and also, as the case may be, his command of the language of the country where it was awarded, a university diploma of the kind in point in the main proceedings is by its nature such as to improve its holder' s chances of appointment as compared with those of other candidates who are unable to make use of any qualification supplementary to the basic education and training required for the post in question.
20 In some cases possession of a postgraduate academic title obtained in another State may even be a prerequisite for access to certain professions, where those professions require specific knowledge such as that evidenced by the diploma in question. That may be so in the case of a postgraduate diploma in law required, for example, for access to an academic career in the fields of international or comparative law.
21 Furthermore, the holder of a diploma such as that in question in the main proceedings may find himself in an advantageous position in the pursuit of his professional activity in so far, as through possession of that diploma, he can obtain higher remuneration or more rapid advancement or, in the course of his career, access to certain specific posts reserved to persons with particularly high qualifications.
22 Similarly, the possibility of using academic titles awarded abroad and supplementing national diplomas required for access to a profession greatly facilitates establishment as an independent practitioner and, in any event, the pursuit of a corresponding professional activity.
23 It follows that the situation of a Community national who holds a postgraduate academic title which, obtained in another Member State, facilitates access to a profession or, at least, the pursuit of an economic activity, is governed by Community law, even as regards the relations between that national and the Member State whose nationality he possesses.
28 On that point, it must however be stressed that Community law sets limits to the exercise of those powers by the Member States in so far as provisions of national law adopted in that connection must not constitute an obstacle to the effective exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case 222/86 UNECTEF v Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 11).
29 The Court has confirmed that Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty implement the fundamental principle contained in Article 3c of the Treaty in which it is stated that, for the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community are to include the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons (see, in particular, judgments in Case 118/75 Watson and Belmann [1976] ECR 1185, paragraph 16; in Heylens, cited above, paragraph 8 and in Case C-370/90 The Queen, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh [1992] ECR I-4265).
32 Consequently, Articles 48 and 52 preclude any national measure governing the conditions under which an academic title obtained in another Member State may be used, where that measure, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. The situation would be different only if such a measure pursued a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and was justified by pressing reasons of public interest (see to that effect, judgment in Case 71/76 Thieffry v Conseil de l' Ordre des Avocats à la Cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765, paragraphs 12 and 15). It would however also be necessary in such a case for application of the national rules in question to be appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective they pursue and not to go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see judgment in Case C-106/91 Ramrath v Ministre de la Justice [1992] ECR I-3351, paragraphs 29 and 30).
34 Community law does not preclude a Member State from adopting, in the absence of harmonization, measures designed to prevent the opportunities created under the Treaty from being abused in a manner contrary to the legitimate interests of the State (see the judgment in Knoors, cited above, paragraph 25).
40 Moreover, verification of the academic title, referred to in paragraph 38 of this judgment, must be carried out by the national authorities in accordance with a procedure which is in conformity with the requirements of Community law as regards the effective protection of the fundamental rights conferred by the Treaty on Community nationals. It follows that any refusal of authorization by the competent national authority must be capable of being subject to judicial proceedings in which its legality under Community law can be reviewed and that the person concerned must be able to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken with respect to him (see judgment in Heylens, cited above, paragraphs 14 to 17, and judgment in Case 340/89 Vlassopoulou v Ministerium fuer Justiz, Bundes-und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Wuerttemburg [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 22).
41 Finally, whilst the national authorities are entitled to prescribe penalties for non-compliance with the authorization procedure, the penalties imposed should not exceed what appears proportionate to the offence committed. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalties laid down for that purpose in the rules of the Member State concerned are not so severe as to impede the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see judgment in Case 8/77 Sagulo and Others [1977] ECR 1495, paragraphs 12 and 13).