C-107/83

O N N O KLOPP, of the Düsseldorf Bar,

on the interpretation of Article 52 et seq. of the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT

composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, T. Koopmans, K. Bahlmann and Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco, O. Due and U. Everling, Judges,

Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator

gives the following

I — Facts and written p r o c e d u r e "An avocat shall establish his chambers within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal de grande instance with which he 1. On 20 January 1981 Mr Klopp, who is registered." is a German national and a member of the Düsseldorf Bar, applied to take the oath as an avocat and to be registered for Article 1 of the Internal Rules of the the period of practical training at the Bar Paris Bar is as follows: in Paris, where he plans to establish chambers whilst remaining a member of the Düsseldorf Bar and retaining his " 1 . An avocat of the Paris Bar must residence and his chambers in genuinely practise his profession. Düsseldorf. It appears from the documents before the Court that in 1969 Mr Klopp was awarded a doctorate by 2. In order to practise the profession, the Faculty of Law and Economics of the he must be a registered legal University of Paris and that on 17 practitioner or trainee and must November 1980 he passed the exami- have his chambers in Paris or in nation for the Certificat d'Aptitude à la the départements of Hauts-de-Seine, Profession d'Avocat [qualifying certi- Seine-Saint-Denis or Val-de-Marne. ficate for the profession of avocai]. 3. Apart from his principal chambers he By order of 17 March 1981 the Conseil may establish a second set of de l'Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de chambers within the same geographi- Paris [Paris Bar Council] rejected his cal area." application on the ground that although Mr Klopp satisfied all the other requirements laid down for admission to By judgment of 24 March 1982 the Cour the profession, he did not fulfil the d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Paris, set provisions of Article 83 of Decree N o aside the decision of the Paris Bar 72-468 (Journal Officiel de la Council on the ground that although the République Française of 11. 6. 1972) and contested provisions permitted a lawyer Article 1 of the Internal Rules of the to maintain chambers in one place only Paris Bar which provide that an avocat in France, it did not follow that a lawyer may establish chambers in one place could not belong simultaneously to a only, which must be within the territorial French Bar and to one or more foreign

Bars. Moreover, that was consistent with Justice of the EEC written observations the principle of equality laid down by the were submitted by Onno Klopp, Treaty since in France Mr Klopp was represented by Bruno Odent, avocat at subject to all the requirements imposed the Conseil d'État [Council of State] and on French lawyers, and it was the the Cour de Cassation; by the Paris Bar practice of the Paris Bar to permit Council, represented by its President pro French lawyers to apply for membership tempore and by the Société Civile of foreign Bars. Professionnelle J. G. Nicolas et H. Masse-Dessen, avocats at the Conseil d'État and the Cour de Cassation; by the The Paris Bar Council appealed against French Government, represented by that judgment. Jean-Paul Costes, acting on behalf of the Secretary General of the Interministerial Committee on Questions of European Taking the view that the dispute raised a Economic Cooperation; by the United question concerning the interpretation of Kingdom, represented by Mrs G. Community law, the Court of Cassation Dagtoglou of the Treasury Solicitor's stayed the proceedings by Order of Department; by the Danish Government, 3 May and requested the Court under represented by its Legal Adviser, Laurids Article 177 of the EEC Treaty to give a Mikaelsen; by the Netherlands preliminary ruling: Government, represented by I. Verkade, Secretary General at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs; and by the Commission "by way of interpretation of Article 52 et of the European Communities, re- seq. of the Treaty of Rome, on whether, presented by Jacques Delmoly and in the absence of any directive of_the Georges Kremlis, members of its Legal Council of the European Communities Department, acting as Agents. coordinating provisions governing access to and exercise of the legal profession, the requirement that a lawyer who is a Upon hearing the report of the Judge- national of a Member State and who Rapporteur and the views of the wishes to practise simultaneously in Advocate General, the Court decided to another Member State must maintain open the oral procedure without any chambers in one place only, a re- preparatory enquiry. It did, however, put quirement imposed by the legislation of certain questions to the parties and to the country where he wishes to establish those who submitted written obser- himself and intended to ensure the vations. proper administration of justice and compliance with professional ethics in that country, constitutes a restriction which is incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 52 I I — Written observations of the Treaty of Rome."

In its judgment of 3 December 1974 in Case .33/74 (van Binsbergen[1974] ECR In any event, the principle which 1299) the Court held that it was prohibits discrimination precludes re- permissible for a Member State to liance on the requirement that chambers impose a legislative requirement of may be maintained in one place only as habitual residence for persons providing against lawyers who are nationals of services. other Member States since that requirement is not applied in practice to French lawyers. Many lawyers practising in Paris have established one or more That decision, however, was based sets of chambers abroad. The Paris Bar expressly on the particular nature of the Association itself has concluded services to be provided and cannot agreements with foreign Bars and similar therefore apply to freedom of es- bodies, such as the Law Society of tablishment. England and Wales and the -Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar. Those agreements expressly lay down that Furthermore, it was held in the above- lawyers practising in Paris may, whilst mentioned judgment that the re- remaining members of the Paris Bar, quirement of habitual residence must be establish themselves abroad and practise based on the application of professional there. rules of conduct justified by the general good and binding upon any person established in the State in which the service is provided. The fact that a Finally, the arguments based on the lawyer has chambers in two places alleged lack 'of reciprocity and the cannot hinder the administration of alleged reverse discrimination must be justice, provided that one set of rejected since, first, German law does chambers is within the territorial not contain any prohibition on main- jurisdiction of the Bar to which he taining chambers in several places and

"The requirement that a lawyer who is a national of a Member State and who wishes to practise simultaneously in The judgment of 3 December 1974 in another Member State may maintain the van Binsbergen case, cited above, chambers in one place only constitutes a which concerns the compatibility of such restriction on freedom of establishment rules justified by the general good with which is incompatible with the Treaty of freedom to provide services, is set in the Rome." same context as this case. It is clear from that judgment that the requirement that persons whose function is to assist the administration of justice must be 2. The Paris Bar Council observes, first, permanently established for professional that the legal profession is still governed purposes within the jurisdiction of only by Council Directive 77/249/EEC certain courts or tribunals is justified by of 22 March 1977 facilitating the the need for courts and tribunals to have effective exercise by lawyers of freedom available, within their territorial to provide services (Official Journal jurisdiction, persons living nearby whose L 78, p. 17). function is to assist the administration of justice, who are known to the judges and who are in a position to deal promptly It is clear from the case-law of the Court with the proceedings in close liaison with that Article 52 of the EEC Treaty has them. direct effect up to a point in so far as the rule of equal treatment is concerned, but it does not necessarily apply in the case of restrictions unrelated to the principle If those considerations are applied with which prohibits discrimination. Ac- regard to the scope of freedom of cordingly, freedom of establishment does establishment, it follows that the rule not depend on the adoption of directives that a lawyer may have chambers in one as far as equal treatment is concerned. place only — if interpreted as prohibiting However, the practical rules for the maintaining chambers in another exercise of that freedom, including the Member State at the same time — must rule that chambers may be maintained in be regarded as compatible with Article one place only, are governed in the 52 of the EEC Treaty since it ensures absence of a directive by national law, without discrimination permanent provided that the requirement in establishment freely chosen within the question does not constitute an obstacle territorial jurisdiction of a court and it is which is manifestly excessive or is necessary in order to ensure observance objectively not for the general good. of professional rules of conduct.

The Paris Bar Council goes on to discrimination, whilst satisfying the analyse the reasons for that rule. profession's requirements as regards Lawyers must of necessity be affiliated to internal organization. a particular system of law, and that is accomplished by means of membership of the Bar. Affiliation to two or more In that regard, the French Government systems of law may be contemplated only points out that the second paragraph of if the rights and obligations arising in Article 52 and Article 54 of the EEC each case have been harmonized. In the Treaty refer as regards access to, and the long term, only a single code of conduct exercise of, freedom of establishment to common to the whole Community will the conditions laid down by the law of suffice to overcome the rule that a the country of establishment. Under the lawyer must be affiliated to a single general programme for the abolition of system of law. The need for such a code restrictions on freedom of establishment has already been acknowledged by the adopted by the Council on 18 December representatives of the legal profession at 1961 only restrictions whereby nationals a meeting of the Consultative Committee of other Member States are treated of the Bars and Law Societies of the differently to 'own' nationals are to be European Community in connection removed by the Member States. The with preparatory work on a proposal for Court has held similarly, particularly in a directive on freedom of establishment the Thieffry judgment cited above, that for lawyers. national professional rules of conduct justified by the general good are protected by the principle of the right of establishment provided that they are "In those circumstances", therefore, it is applied without discrimination. necessary to regard "the rule that chambers may be maintained in one place only as a restriction on the scope of freedom of establishment which is The French Government goes on to state objectively necessary for the general that Article 83 of Decree No 72-468, a good and which in no way contravenes rule that does not give rise to discrimi- the principle of such freedom and its nation, is based on the principle that direct effect". lawyers must genuinely pracise before a court and, more specifically, must be accessible to their clients and the courts.

grande instance and that amounts to presupposes the existence of companies choice of an address for service. In and firms having establishments in two particular, the procedure for preparing or more Member States. cases laid down by the New Code of Civil Procedure of 13 October 1965 depends on personal contact between the judge responsible for conducting the Secondly, Article 54 (1) refers to the preliminary inquiry and the lawyer, abolition of restrictions on freedom of which requires the latter's constant establishment "within the Community". presence in the vicinity of the court. Accordingly, the requirement that lawyers may maintain chambers in one place only is not merely a procedural It is clear that for the purposes of the rule but a rule pertaining to both judicial right of establishment the Community administration and professional ethics. must be treated as a single territory, and consequently in the absence of any law to the contrary which has effect throughout the Community there is no The French Government adds that a limit on the number of Member States in strict interpretation of the principle of which an individual may be established. freedom of establishment is also necessary to maintain the distinction between freedom to provide services and the right of establishment, for otherwise It must be added that although the the right of establishment would cease to second paragraph of Article 52 leaves the have any meaning. Member States free to impose national rules governing the conditions under which lawyers may practise once established, it does not permit a Member 4. The United Kingdom, which requests State to impose a national law which the Court to decide the case in plenary excludes the right of establishment session, considers that the question at altogether by allowing an individual to issue in the present case is whether one establish himself in one part of the Member State may impose a requirement Community only if he is prepared to re- preventing the establishment within its linquish his establishment in another territory of a lawyer from another part. Member State, whether an avocat or a member of any other branch of the legal profession in a Member State, unless he relinquishes his establishment in his own Furthmore, the conditions applied under Member State. That question calls for an the law of a Member State to the answer in the negative in view of the nationals of another Member State must spirit and the letter of the EEC Treaty. not be stricter than those laid down for its own nationals. If, therefore, French law permits French lawyers to have a second place of establishment abroad — In the first place, Article 52 of the Treaty as the documents before the Court includes amongst the restrictions to be would appear to show — it cannot abolished those applying to the setting prevent foreign lawyers from having a up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries. second place of establishment in France. The resulting freedom of establishment To that extent there is no reverse

Finally, the argument to the effect that the requirement that chambers may be 5. The Danish Government observes in maintained in one place only is justified limine that in its view the training period in order to ensure the proper as an avocat envisaged by Mr Klopp is administration of justice and compliance not covered by the rules of Community with professional ethics must be rejected. law relating to employed persons or to Admittedly, the need for lawyers to be persons providing services. permanently established for professional purposes within the jurisdiction of certain courts or tribunals, which was As regards the question referred for recognized by the Court in the van a preliminary ruling the Danish Binsbergen judgment cited above, justifies Government considers that in the light of national laws requiring persons whose the considerations set out in the Court's function is to assist the administration of judgment of 21 June 1974 in Case 2/74 justice to maintain a permanent (Reyners [1974] ECR 631) the obligation establishment within the jurisdiction of imposed on lawyers by a Member State the relevant court, but it does not justify to maintain chambers in one place only a requirement to the effect that only one is compatible with the EEC Treaty, permanent establishment may be main- provided that the provision in question tained in the Community. does not distinguish between lawyers by reference to their nationality and that its sole effect is to prohibit lawyers from maintaining several sets of chambers in The United Kingdom points out in no the Member State concerned. part of its territory is there any restriction on the number of chambers from which a barrister or advocate may However, a Member State cannot practise, or on the number of offices prevent a lawyer who already has which a solicitor may maintain, although chambers in another Member State from the permission of the appropriate pro- also establishing himself within its own fessional body may sometimes be needed territory. It is of paramount importance for more than two sets of chambers. for the purposes of freedom of Likewise, a lawyer established in the establishment that nationals of a Member United Kingdom may have chambers or State should, even in the absence of a offices in another Member State. In directive, be able to establish themselves conclusion, the United Kingdom not only in another Member State but suggests that the answer to the question also in several Member States simul- submitted should be as follows : taneously, provided that they satisfy the general conditions for establishment laid down by those States. "A requirement that a lawyer who is a national of a first Member State and who wishes to practise the profession of Next, the Danish Government reviews lawyer simultaneously in a second the relevant Danish legislation. Article Member State should maintain chambers 124 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure in one place only within the Community provides that lawyers may not maintain does, even though that requirement may simultaneously two sets of chambers in be intended to ensure the proper several judicial districts. However, that administration of justice and compliance rule is interpreted by the professional

associations as extending only to that kind, the effect of which is, chambers situated in Denmark and not moreover, to deny access to and the to Danish lawyers established in right to pursue the profession of lawyer Denmark who wish to establish to non-nationals alone, is incompatible chambers abroad as consultants, or to with freedom of establishment since it lawyers from other Member States who deprives Article 52 of the Treaty of any wish to establish themselves in a judical effect. district in Denmark whilst retaining chambers in their country of origin. Next, the Netherlands Government considers the legislation applicable in the In conclusion the Danish Government Netherlands. According to the Ad- suggests that the answer to the question vocatenwet [Law on the legal profession], a lawyer may not be should be as follows: registered with more than one court and is required to maintain his chambers "National provisions permitting lawyers within the territorial jurisdiction of that to maintain chambers in one place only court. However, the provisions in are not contrary to Article 52 of the question are concerned only with EEC Treaty if they are interpreted as a registration and the establishment of prohibition on maintaining several sets of chambers in the Netherlands; they are chambers in the country of es- not interpreted as meaning that a foreign tablishment. However, national lawyer who fulfils the other requirements provisions of that kind cannot prevent for membership cannot become a lawyers from maintaining chambers in member on the ground that he already several countries of establishment, if belongs to a foreign Bar. those countries are Member States of the European Community." 7. The Commission points out in the first place that the right of establishment 6. The Netherlands Government ob- guaranteed by Article 52 of the Treaty is serves that in the light of the Reyners and based on the principle of "national van Binsbergen judgments cited above no treatment", according to which a requirement as to nationality or national of a Member State is entitled to residence may be imposed as regards establish himself in another Member establishment and the provision of State on the same conditions as nationals services, notwithstanding the fact that of that State with a view to working as a the directives provided for by Articles 54 self-employed person. Establishment for and 57 of the EEC Treaty have not been Community purposes refers to the adopted. The present case concerns a creation of a professional base which is requirement relating to residence leading intended by the person who creates or to de facto discrimination, which is acquires it to be for at least a prohibited by Article 52 of the EEC considerable period of time. Treaty. The following principles may be elicited The Paris Bar Council's interpretation of from the case-law of the Court Article 83 of Decree N o 72-468 is concerning freedom of establishment: tantamount to saying that a lawyer cannot simultaneously be a member of a Bar in his own country and of a Bar in (a) Freedom of establishment is a another Member State. A restriction of fundamental right which exists

regardless of whether the directives 52 of the Treaty does not lay down any provided for by Article 57 of the condition of that kind in order for it to EEC Treaty have been adopted. The have full effect. sole purpose of the directives in question is to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment Thirdly, there is no conflict between in a given sector of activity. rules of professional conduct since there is no reason to suppose that as a result of his membership of a German Bar Mr (b) Any restriction on the exercise of Klopp may find himself confronted in freedom of establishment resulting France with situations in which it would from a provision of national law be impossible to comply with the French must be interpreted and applied in rules of professional conduct. In any accordance with the objectives of event, it is common knowledge that a Community law. Thus, Article 52 of number of members of the Paris Bar are the Treaty may have the effect of also members of foreign Bars. rendering a national provision un- enforceable as against Community nationals. Fourthly, the Commission challenges the argument to the effect that Community (c) An indirect restriction on freedom of law does not confer a subjective right of establishment may, as is the case establishment in a Member State on with a direct restriction, be incom- lawyers who are members of a Bar in patible with Article 52 of the Treaty. another Member State. On the contrary, it is clear from the scope of Article 52 of the Treaty and from the general programme for the abolition of re- Next, the Commission considers the strictions on freedom of establishment arguments put forward by the Paris Bar that all restrictions must be removed on Council. the right to take up or pursue activities as self-employed persons where, although ostensibly applicable without In the first place, Article 83 of Decree discrimination based on nationality, they No 72-468 cannot be interpreted as impair exclusively or primarily the right relating to access to the profession of of non-nationals to take up or pursue avocat. In any event, the concept of those activities. The rule relating to chambers, when used in a provision of chambers, as interpreted and applied by national law, can properly be applied the Paris Bar Council, constitutes a only within the territorial limits restriction of that kind since in practice it applicable as regards the scope of the affects exclusively foreign lawyers by provision in question; it cannot have denying them the right to take up the extra-territorial effect. This means that a profession of avocat, whilst it is applied lawyer may be prohibited from to French lawyers only after they are establishing a second set of chambers in established within French territory. France only once he has established himself in the jurisdiction of a court on French territory. It follows that the practical effect of the contested rule is to allow only young Secondly, the argument that there is a lawyers who are nationals of another lack of reciprocity between the Paris and Member State and who have attended in Düsseldorf Bars must be rejected. Article France the courses required in order to

How many lawyers of the Paris Bar were In conclusion, the Commission suggests at the time of the contested decision that the answer to the question submitted simultaneously enrolled at a foreign should be as follows : Bar?"

"The requirement that a national of a The answer of the Paris Bar Council is Member State who is already a member that the Internal Rules of the Paris Bar of a Bar and established as a lawyer in do not authorize dual enrolment but a Member State and who wishes to simply facilitate collaboration between become a member of a Bar and to lawyers enrolled at the Paris Bar and establish himself as a lawyer in another lawyers enrolled at a foreign Bar. Under Member State may maintain chambers in those rules a lawyer enrolled at the Paris one place only, although he fulfils all the Bar may, with the prior agreement of requirements laid down for nationals the president of the Bar, open other wishing to take up that profession, chambers abroad or enter into an agency constitutes, even where no directive has agreement. Such possibilities, however, been adopted under Article 57 of the have nothing to do with enrolment. They

ORDRE DES AVOCATS AU. BARREAU DE PARIS v KLOPP

are simply the basis for cooperation, and It would appear that the solution lies by no means require simultaneous en- either in the application of the classical rolment at two different Bars. principles of conflict of laws, or in the adoption of the unilateral method which is to refer to municipal law wherever laws of a mandatory and public nature are to be applied. The rules relating to The Council adds that if there are lawyers and their status are basically individual cases of dual enrolment they matters of public policy from which there are contrary to the laws and regulations can be no derogation. in force.

a) In answer to the questions the Paris Bar Council observes that French law On the other hand a failure by a lawyer does not at present - allow dual estab- who is a member of a French Bar to act lishment so that the question does not with honesty, integrity or discretion, arise. The Council can therefore only even in relation to conduct unconnected surmise the position. with his profession, which has been the

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1984 — CASE 107/83

subject of disciplinary measures imposed rules the Danish Bar Association might by a foreign court may give rise to a make allowance for the fact that the disciplinary sanction in France. person concerned was accustomed to different rules in another country where he is established. The Association might also take into account the fees custom- arily required in the other country of c) The answer from the Government of establishment. the United Kingdom reveals that the position in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland differs from that and, moreover, is not the same for Furthermore, disciplinary measures im- barristers (or advocates) and solicitors. posed in another Member State might The common principles may be sum- bring into question the right of a lawyer marized as follows : who is a member of the Danish Bar to continue to practice in Denmark.

Disciplinary measures taken in another 3. The Commission was further asked State on grounds of professional mis- to state what progress had been made in conduct do not have automatic effect in preparing the Community directive on the United Kingdom. They may the right of establishment of lawyers. nevertheless give rise to independent disciplinary measures in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom. It stated that it had not prepared any draft directive on the right of estab- lishment of lawyers. Preparatory work d) According to the Danish Govern- had, however, been undertaken by the ment lawyers established both abroad Consultative Committee of the Bars and and in Denmark must satisfy the same Law Societies of the European requirements of honesty and integrity as Communities with the object of con- those imposed on other Danish lawyers. sidering ways in which the right of Possibly, however, in proceedings against establishment of lawyers might be faci- such a lawyer for a minor breach of the litated in the absence of harmonization

ORDRE DES AVOCATS AU BARREAU DE PARIS v KLOPP

of legal training and mutual recognition Paris Bar Council, represented by J. G. of qualifications. The work of the Nicolas, the French Government, re- Consultative Committee had resulted in presented by G. Guillaume, and the Com- a preliminary draft directive (Athinai mission of the European Communities, 5/82) which had been discussed by the represented by J. Delmoly, presented Commission and the Consultative oral argument and answered questions Committee. put by the Court.

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1984 — CASE 107/83

4 Article 83 of the aforesaid decree provides that: "An avocat shall establish his chambers within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal de grande instance with which he is registered". Article 1 of the Internal Rules of the Paris Bar provides: "An avocat of the Paris Bar must genuinely practise his profession," that "in order to practise the profession, he must be a registered legal practitioner o r trainee and must have his chambers in Paris or in the départements of Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis or Val-de-Marne" and that "apart from his principal chambers be may establish a second set of chambers within the same geographical area."

5 When the Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Paris, set aside the decision of the Paris Bar Council by judgment of 24 March 1982 the Council appealed to the Court of Cassation, which, taking the view that the case raised a question concerning the interpretation of Community law, stayed the proceedings and requested the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty to give a preliminary ruling :

"by way of interpretation of Article 52 et seq. of the Treaty of Rome, on whether, in the absence of any directive of the Council of the European Communities coordinating provisions governing access to and exercise of the legal profession, the requirement that a lawyer who is a national of a Member State and who wishes to practise simultaneously in another Member State must maintain chambers in one place only, a requirement imposed by the legislation of the country where he wishes to establish himself and intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with professional ethics in that country, constitutes a restriction which is incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome."

9 In order to promote the progressive achievement of that objective the Council adopted on 1,8 December 1961 pursuantao Article 54 of the Treaty a general programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment (Official Journal, English Special Edition, Second Series Vol IX, p. 7). In order to implement the programme Article 54 (2) of the Treaty provides that the Council is to issue directives to achieve freedom of establishment in respect of the various activities in question. Furthermore, Article.57.of the Treaty makes the Council responsible for issuing directives providing for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and for the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons. Although the legal profession is already governed in relation to freedom to provide services by Council Directive 77/249 of 22 March 1977 facilitating the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (Official Journal L 78, p. 17), no directive on freedom of establishment for lawyers has been adopted under Articles 54 and 57 of the Treaty.

io Nevertheless, as the Court has already held in its judgment of 21 June 1974 (Case 2/74 Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631), in laying down that freedom of establishment shall be attained at the end of the transitional period, Article 52 imposes an obligation to attain a precise result the fulfilment of which must be made easier by, but not made dependent on, the implementation of a programme of progressive measures. Consequently the

is In the second place the applicant, the United Kingdom, the Danish Government and the Commission consider that the legislation of the Member State of establishment, although applicable to access to the

ORDRE DES AVOCATS AU BARREAU DE PARIS v KLOPP

profession and practice of law in that country, may not prohibit a lawyer who is a national of another Member State from retaining his chambers there.

i6 The Paris Bar Council and the French Government object in that respect that Article 52 of the Treaty requires the full application of the law of the Member State of establishment. The rule that an avocat may have his • chambers in one place only is based on the need for avocats to genuinely practice before a court in order to ensure their availability to both the court and their clients. It should be respected as being a rule pertaining to the administration of justice and to professional ethics, objectively necessary arid consistent with the public interest.

i7 It should be emphasized that under the second paragraph of Article 52 freedom of establishment includes access to and the pursuit of the activities of self-employed persons "under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected." It follows from that provision and its context that in the absence of specific Community rules in the matter each Member State is free to regulate the exercise of the legal profession in its territory.

is Nevertheless that rule does not mean that the legislation of a Member State may require a lawyer to have only one establishment throughout the Communty territory. Such a restrictive interpretation would mean that a lawyer once established in a particular Member State would be able to enjoy the freedom of the Treaty to establish himself in another Member State only at the price of abandoning the establishment he already had.

22 The question must therefore be answered to the effect that even in the absence of any directive coordinating national provisions governing access to and the exercise of the legal profession, Article 52 et seq. of the EEC Treaty prevent the competent authorities of a Member State from denying, on the basis of the national legislation and the rules of professional conduct which are in force in that State, to a national of another Member State the right to enter and to exercise the legal profession solely on the ground that he maintains chambers simultaneously in another Member State.

Costs

23 The costs incurred by the United Kingdom, the French and Netherlands Governments and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since the

ORDRE DES AVOCATS AU BARREAU DE PARIS v KLOPP

proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

For the Registrar H. A. Rühi A. J. Mackenzie Stuart Principal Administrator President