Reyners v Belgium
| Reyners v Belgium | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (1974) Case 2/74, [1974] ECR 631 |
| Keywords | |
| Free movement of services | |
Reyners v Belgium (1974) Case 2/74 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Facts
Mr Reyners claimed that he should be admitted to the Belgian bar, after he was refused because he lacked Belgian nationality. He claimed that this breached the Treaty's provisions on free movement of services, now TFEU article 56.
The Conseil d’Etat asked the Court of Justice whether the legal profession of avocat was wholly exempt under the TFEU article 51 official authority exception given that part of the business was concerned with exercise of official authority. the Luxembourg government argued the whole profession should be exempt given it was ‘connected organically’ to the public administration of justice.
AG Mayras gave an opinion that "official authority" is "the power of enjoying the prerogatives outside the general law, privileges of official power, and powers of coercion over citizens."
Judgment
The Court of Justice held that TFEU article 49 was directly effective, even though directives had not been adopted. It laid down a precise result to be achieved. The advocate profession was not exempted from art 49 under art 51, because judicial exercise of power was left intact. There needed to be a single community definition and that the exemption could not be construed more broadly than would fit its purpose. If specific activities involving exercise of official authority are severable from the rest of a profession, then art 51 cannot apply to exempt the whole lot.
| “ | 26 In laying down that freedom of establishment shall be attained at the end of the transitional period, article 52 thus imposes an obligation to attain a precise result, the fulfilment of which had to be made easier by, but not made dependent on, the implementation of a programme of progressive measures.
[...] 52 The most typical activities of the profession of avocat, in particular, such as consultation and legal assistance and also representation of the defence of parties in court, even when the intervention or assistance of the avocat is compulsory or is a legal monopoly, cannot be considered as connected with the exercise of official authority. 53 The exercise of these activities leaves the discretion of judicial authority and the free exercise of judicial power intact. |
” |