81 / 336
those applied to their own nationals, it is clear that
such uncontrolled activities in a given Member State
may be carried on freely by a national of any other
Member State. The only discretion left to Member
States in relation to the right of entry and residence
of such persons is that based on grounds of public
order, public security and public health, and even that
discretion is governed by general co-ordinating pro-
visions laid down in Directive 64/221.
The sector of economic activity in respect of which
least progress has been made is that of the professions.
Apart from the directives approved in February
1975 to facilitate the freedom of establishment of
doctors, no other directives affecting the professional
activities have yet been adopted. Although directives
have been proposed by the Commission to implement
the freedoms for a considerable number of professions
-notably „ for dentists,
architects,
accountants,
engineers and lawyers (services only) — all these were
withdrawn for revision after the Reyncrs decision.
This was because the provisions of these directives
relating to the elimination of restrictions based on
nationality were rendered superfluous by that
decision. Their other provisions, relating notably to
the co-ordination of national regulations governing the
excrcise of the professions (such as minimum training
periods, evidence of good repute, the titles to be used
etc.) and the mutual recognition of qualifications, will
still be required, and until they are adopted the
effective exercise of the right of establishment by
members of the different professions will be
impossible.
As far as the legal profession is concerned, the
decisions are of particular relevance, at least in theory.
In most Member States, the giving of legal advice, as
opposed to pleading or the drafting of certain docu-
ments, requires neither formal legal qualifications noi'
membership of any professional organisation. Since
the Rcyners and Van Binsbergen decisions, a Member
State which does not impose such control on its own
nationals, obviously cannot restrict nationals of other
Member States from establishing themselves as legal
advisers on its territory or providing legal advice on
a temporary basis to persons resident there. This
freedom is somewhat precarious however. For example,
there would seem to be no rule preventing qualified
lawyers in a given Member State from refusing to
deal with such unqualified advisers, a difficulty which
might render much of their work impossible in prac-
tice. Also, in some Member States qualified lawyers
already have a monopoly of legal consultation, and
there is nothing to prevent a Member State passing
legislation restricting the right to give legal advice to
qualified lawyers. This is a typical example of the
"hybrid" right of establishment, varying from State to
State, which the Belgian Government
thought
undesirable.
The Reyncrs decision was of course also very
Important for lawyers, in that it settled the long
controversy as to whether the exception in Article 55
a
pplied to the whole profession or merely to certain
activities carried on by lawyers.
Given the difficulties involved in any meaningful
mutual recognition of legal qualifications, the legal
profession is probably less amenable to the full and
effective implementation of the freedom of establish-
ment than any other. However, a certain amount of
progress has already been made by means of bilateral
conventions between the Benelux countries and the
Brussels, Paris and Rome Bars. The terms of these
are similar to those contained in the proposed
lawyers' draft directive on freedom to provide ser-
vices, namely the freedom of legal consultation and
the right to plead in conjunction with a local lawyer.
The draft directive itself will have to be revised both
in the light of the Rcyncrs and van Binsbergen
decisions and also to deal with the problems arising
from the accession of the three new Member States,
particularly the UK and Ireland where the legal
systems and professions are of course very different
from those in the Six.
The Consultative Committee of the Bars of the
Countries of the European Communities adopted a
resolution in October 1974 which, inter alia, resolved
that an incoming lawyer "should not advise on the
law of the host country unless he has first obtained
the assistance or advice of a lawyer of the host
country, or has obtained the consent of the Bar of
the host country, or does so in conformity with
existing customs and practices." It is obvious
therefore that lawyers in the Community already
recognise the need to deal with problems arising from
the tendency for lawyers from different Member States
to establish themselves in other Member States to
advise not only on their national law or international
law, but also the law of the Member State in which
they are established. This tendency has been most
obvious in some countries where the increase in inter-
national commercial business has created a demand
for a type of specialised legal service complementary to
that provided by local lawyers, and will no doubt grow
as the integration of the Common Market continues.
However difficult its achievement may be, the
desirability of effective freedom of establishment for
lawyers throughout the Community, particularly where
matters of international commercial law are involved,
can hardly be doubted. The raison de t re for such
freedom of establishment was well expressed by
Advocate General Mayras in his Opinion delivered in
the Reyners case:
"With economic integration must obviously come
the development of legal relations, that is. the
growth and diversification of the services which
individuals and undertakings need for purposes
of consultation and dispute. They must further
be able to have free recourse to these services
and to choose, without consideration
of
language or nationality, the lawyers whom they
consider the best qualified to advise them and to
defend their interests."