Case 1 - Mr. Gebhard was a German lawyer: he was a member of the Stuttgart Bar as ‘independent collaborator' and did not have any chamber there. He pursued a professional activity in Italy since 1978, initially as a collaborator in a set of chambers of lawyers practising in association in Milan, and subsequently, from 1980 to 1989, as an associate member.
In 1989 he opened his own chambers in Milan in which Italian ‘avvocati' and ‘procuratori' worked with him. Italian practitioners lodged a complaint with the Milan Bar Council: he used the title avvocato on the letterhead of notepaper which he used for professional purposes, of his having appeared using the title avvocato before the Pretura and the Tribunale di Milano. The Milan Bar Council prohibited Mr. Gebhard from using the title avvocato.
Case 2 - Mrs. Vlassopoulou was a Greek lawyer registered with the Athens Bar and the Ministry for Justice, Federal and European Affairs of the Land Baden-Wuerttemberg. She has been working with a firm of German lawyers. Besides her Greek diplomas, Mrs. Vlassopoulou has a doctorate in law from a German university. As far as German law is concerned, Mrs. Vlassopoulou practices under the responsibility of one of her German colleagues in the firm.
On 13 May 1988, Mrs. Vlassopoulou applied to the Ministry for admission as a lawyer. The Ministry refused her application on the ground that she did not have the qualifications, laid down by Paragraph 4 of the Federal regulation on the profession of Rechtsanwalt.
Case 3 - Mr. Klopp had applied to take the oath as an lawyer and to be registered for the period of practical training at the Paris Bar whilst remaining a member of the Dusseldorf Bar and retaining his chambers there.
By an order of 17 March 1981 the Bar Council rejected Mr. Klopp's application on the ground that he did not satisfy the provisions of Article 89 of Decree No 72-468 and Article 1 of the internal rules of the Paris Bar providing that an avocat may establish one chamber only, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Court with which he is registered.
[...] Cases study - Gebhard, Vlassopoulo and Klopp Table of content Chapter Introduction to the cases Parties involved-Facts of the case-Kind of proceedings-Most important EU primary and secondary law-Resulting legal question-Arguments of the parties- Conclusion of the ECJ over the case Section 1. Summary of Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano Section 2. Summary of Irène Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg case Section 3. Summary of Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris v. Klopp Chapter Analysis and opinion on the cases Section 1. Analysis of both case and ruling in Gebhard case Section 2. Analysis of both cases and ruling in Vlassopoulou case Section 3. [...]
[...] Gebhard Mr. Gebhard argued that Directive 77/249 entitled him to pursue his professional activities from his own chambers in Milan. It states that a lawyer providing services has to adopt the professional title used in his State of origin, expressed in the language or one of the languages of that State, with an indication of the professional organisation by which he is admitted to practise or the court of law before which he is entitled to practise. A distinction has to be made between activities relating to the representation of a client in legal proceedings or before public authorities and all other activities. [...]
[...] Vlassopoulou applied to the Ministry for admission as a lawyer. The Ministry refused her application on the ground that she did not have the qualifications, laid down by Paragraph 4 of the Federal regulation on the profession of Rechtsanwalt. The kind of proceedings Mrs. Vlassopoulou first appealed against the decision of refusal from the Ministry but she has been dismissed by the Lawyers' Disciplinary Council. She then appealed against the previous decision to the Federal Supreme Court, which referred the question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling because the dispute raised a question of interpretation of Article 52. [...]
[...] Gebhard the sanction of suspension from pursuing his professional activity for six months. Mr. Gebhard appealed against that decision to the Consiglio Nazionale Forense which referred the dispute to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling for the interpretation of Article 52 EEC Treaty and he was appealing against the implied rejection of his application to be entered on the roll as well. The most important and relevant EU primary and secondary law - Article 52 EC Treaty ] restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. [...]
[...] Analysis of both case and ruling in Vlassopoulou case Analysis over the ruling resulting of that case calls for considering negative and positive points all together. The most important negative point would be for me, that the application by the Court of the content of the Directive which was to be implemented before the end of implementation period could be an untold and ill-founded infringement of sovereignty of the Member States. Even though they agreed to implement it, their national legal systems are not supposed to be in accordance with the Directive. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APACitez le doc consulté
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture