C-54/88
ECLI:EU:C:1990:91
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61988CC0054
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
NINO AND OTHERS
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 6 March 1990 *
Mr President, account of treatment involving biotherapy Members of the Court, and pranotherapy. Case C-91/88 relates to the proceedings brought against Bruna Goti and Rinaldo Prandini, members of the AIFEP, for practising as pranotherapists. Finally, Case C-14/89 relates to proceedings brought against Pier Cesare Pierini, also a member of the AIFEP, for 1. The three Joined Cases C-54/88, practising as a pranotherapist. Before each C-91/88 and C-14/89 present the Court of their respective courts, the accused relied with identical questions for a preliminary on the provisions of the Treaty relating to ruling submitted respectively by the Pretore the freedom of establishment and claimed (Magistrate) of Conegliano, the Pretore of that the proceedings brought against them Prato and the Pretore of Pisa, concerning failed to take those provisions into account. the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom of estab lishment, with reference to the practice of certain professions of a paramedical nature.
4. As the Italian Government and the Commission have pointed out, there is nothing in the documents before the Court which would suggest that the questions 2. The identical wording of the questions submitted relate to situations coming within may be explained primarily by the fact that the scope of the Community law on the courts making the references were faced freedom of establishment. On the contrary, with very similar situations. The cases it appears that the cases concern purely concerned criminal proceedings brought internal situations involving Italian nationals against biotherapists or pranotherapists residing in Italy who have been charged under Article 348 of the Italian Penal Code before Italian courts for activities carried on for the unlawful practice of medicine. in Italy. The proceedings which have given rise to the preliminary references have no connection with Community law to be found in the case-law of the Court, such as acquisition of the professional training under consideration or the exercise of the profession in question in another Member 3. Case C-54/88 relates to the criminal 1 State. It therefore appears to me that the proceedings instituted against Eleonora questions referred by the national courts Nino, a member of the Associazione italiana relate to situations which clearly do not flussoterapeuti e pranoterapeuti (Italian come within the provisions of the Treaty Flusotherapy and Pranotherapy Association) which the Court is requested to interpret. (hereinafter referred to as 'AIFEP'), on 1 — Judgment in Case 115/78 Knoors v Secretary for State for * Original language: French. Economic Affairs [1979] ECR 399, paragraph 24
I - 3543
OPINION OF MR DARMON —JOINED CASES C-54/88, C-91/88 AND C-14/89
5. As the Court stressed in particular in its any discrimination on grounds of judgment in Commission v Belgium, Article nationality'. 2 52: Consequently, as the Court, for example, 'is intended to ensure that all nationals of recently held in its judgment in Bekaert: Member States who establish themselves in another Member State, even if that estab 'the absence of any element going beyond lishment is only secondary, for the purpose a purely national setting in a given of pursuing activities there as a self- case ... means, in matters of freedom of employed person receive the same treatment establishment, that the provisions of as nationals of that State and it prohibits, as Community law are not applicable to such a a restriction on freedom of establishment, situation'. 3
6. I would therefore suggest that the Court adopt an approach similar to that in its judgment in Bekaert, cited above, and rule as follows:
'The provisions of the EEC Treaty relating to freedom of establishment do not apply to situations which are purely internal, such as that of nationals of a Member State who are engaged, within its territory and in a self-employed capacity, in a professional activity in respect of which they are unable to demon strate previous training or practice in another Member State.'
2 — Case 221/85 [1987] ECR 719, paragraph 10. 3 — Case 204/87 [1988] ECR 2029, paragraph 12.
I - 3544