C-29/94

AUBERTIN AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 16 February 1995 *

In Joined Cases C-29/94, C-30/94, C-31/94, C-32/94, C-33/94, C-34/94 and C-35/94,

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Charleville-Mézières (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against

Jean-Louis Aubertin,

Bernard Collignon,

I-311

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1995 — JOINED CASES C-29/94 TO C-35/94

on the interpretation of Council Directive 82/489/EEC of 19 July 1982 laying down measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in hairdressing (OJ 1982 L 218, p. 24),

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N . Kakouris (Rap­ porteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges,

Advocate General: C. O . Lenz, Registrar: R. Grass,

I-312

AUBERTIN AND OTHERS

Judgment

1 By seven judgments of 4 October 1993, received at the Court on 26 January 1994, the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Charleville-Mézières (France)^ exercising its criminal jurisdiction, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Council Directive 82/489/EEC of 19 July 1982 laying down measures to facilitate the effec­ tive exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in hair- dressing (OJ 1982 L 218, p . 24).

2 That question was raised in criminal proceedings instituted by the Public Prosecu­ tor's Office under Article 5 of Law No 46-1173 of 23 May 1946 regulating the conditions of access to the trade of hairdresser {Journal Officiel de la République Française —JORF of 24 May 1946, p. 4539) against the accused persons, Mr Aub- ertin, MrCollignon, Mr Creusot, Ms Diblanc, Mr Josse, Ms Martin and Mr Nor­ mand, of French nationality and resident in France, for operating hairdressing salons in France without holding a hairdressing diploma (brevet professionnel de coiffure) or a master's diploma (brevet de maîtrise) and without a qualified man­ ager being present, as required by Article 3 of that law, which provides that 'the operation of a hairdressing salon requires a qualified manager with a registered contract where the owner of that salon does not hold a hairdressing diploma or master's diploma'.

3 In order to transpose Directive 82/489, Law No 46-1173 was amended by Law No 87-343 of 22 May 1987 supplementing Law No 46-1173 with regard to nation­ als of the Member States of the European Economic Community (TORF of 23 May 1987, p . 5650).

— either that he has had previous training of at least three years for which he has received a diploma recognized by the State or a competent trade organization in accordance with the provisions governing access to the trade in the State where the activity was performed;

— or he has pursued the trade as an employed person for at least five years.

[...]'

s Circular No 88010 of 27 July 1988 on the application of Law No 87-343 of 22 May 1987 states that 'the provisions of the Law of 22 May 1987 are also appli-

I - 314

AUBERTIN AND OTHERS

I - 315

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1995 —JOINED CASES C-29/94 TO C-35/94

9 It is settled case-law that the Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement for persons cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State (see, for example, Joined Cases C-330/90 and C-331/90 López Brea and Hidalgo Palacios [1992] ECR1-323, paragraph 7).

io It is clear from the judgments of the national court that the criminal proceedings before it concern French nationals working as hairdressers in France who do not claim to have obtained in another Member State the occupational qualifications required to pursue those activities.

n There is thus no connecting factor between such situations and any of those con­ templated by Community law, so that the Treaty rules on freedom of establish­ ment are inapplicable.

i2 It is evident from the fourth and fifth recitals in the preamble to Directive 82/489 that the directive does not aim to harmonize the conditions laid down by national rules for access to the occupation of hairdresser and the pursuit of that occupation.

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Charleville-Mézières, by judgments of 4 October 1993, hereby rules:

Community law, in particular Council Directive 82/489/EEC of 19 July 1982 laying down measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in hairdressing, must be inter­ preted as not precluding national rules which require that nationals of that Member State hold a diploma in order to operate a hairdressing salon, while permitting hairdressers who are nationals of other Member States to operate a hairdressing salon without holding such a diploma and without being obliged to entrust its operation to a manager holding that diploma.

Kapteyn Kakouris Murray

I-317

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1995 -JOINED CASES C-29/94 TO C-35/94