501 / 822
GAZETTE
DECEMBER 1988
the question of double nationality.
It is not clear from the Report of the
case whether this aspect was part
of the reference or if the Court
(including the Advocate General)
took it upon itself to consider the
matter.
The problem raised by double
nationality was whether a national
of t wo Member States, who had
been admitted as a Member of the
legal profession in one of those
States, might rely on the provisions
of the Directive on the territory of
the other Member State.
The free movement of persons,
the freedom of establishment and
the freedom to provide services,
which were fundamental to the
Community system, would not be
fully realised if a Member State
might refuse the benefit of the
provisions of Community law to
those of its nationals who, while
established in another Member
State whose nationality they also
held, made use of the facilities
granted by Community Law in order
to exercise their activities in the
territory of the first State.
The thrust of the Court's ruling
in
Gullung
is that lawyers of one
Community country can provide
legal services in another Member
State once the provisions of the
Directive are complied with, and
may establish themselves subject
to registration at the Bar of the host
State.
In relation to the right of estab-
lishment under Article 52 of the
Treaty it may well be that the Court
will be called upon in future to
clarify the exact extent of this
f r e e d om
w i t h
r e f e r ence
to
particular facts.
(B) C O M M I S S I ON OF T HE
EUROPEAN C OMMU N I T I ES -v-
F E D E R AL
R E P U B L IC
OF
GERMANY,
J u d gme n t 2 5 t h February, 1988.
This matter (hereinafter referred to
as
the German
case)
a r o se o u t of
p r o c eed i ngs b r ought by t he
European Commission against the
Federal Republic of Germany under
Article 169 of the Treaty.
Su b s t a n ce of Case
The Commission sought a declara-
tion that the Federal Republic of
Germany had failed in regard to the
exercise by lawyers of freedom to
provide services to fulfil its obliga-
tions under the Treaty and under
the Directive to facilitate the
effective exercise by lawyers of
freedom to provide such services.
The Commission directed its
complaints against the manner in
which Germany had given effect to
Article 5 of the Directive as regards
the du ty of
" c o - o p e r a t i o n"
imposed on a lawyer from another
Member S t a te w ho pu r sued
activities in Germany by way of
provision of legal services.
There were three separate
matters at issue:
(1) Extent of the co-operation
w i th the German lawyer,
(2) Detailed rules of co-operation,
and
(3) Territorial limits on represen-
tation.
(1) Ex t ent of Co - ope r a t i on w i t h
Ge r man l awye r s:
According to the 1980 German
legislation purporting to transpose
the Directive, the obligation to work
w i t h a lawyer established in
0 ^^tlimutn
<yíéemÁm
Provide Professional and comprehensive
service in all aspects of
Law Searching to the Legal Profession
Fully Indemnified
under the
Personal Supervision
of
Joseph
T. Men ton
A Fellow of the Irish Institute
of Legal
Executives
Established
1978
1 9 / 2 0 F l eet S t r e e t ,
D u b l i n 2 .
Telephone: 774866/777571 Fax: 777866
WHERE THERE'S A WILL
THIS IS THE WAY...
When a client makes a will in favour of the
Society, it would be appreciated if the bequest
were stated in the following words:
"I devise and bequeath the sum of
Pounds
to the Irish Cancer Society Limited to be applied by it
for any of the charitable objects of the Society, as it,
the Society, at its absolute discretion, may
decide."
All monies received by the Society are expended
within the Republic of Ireland.
"Conquer Cancer Campaign" is a Registered
Business Name and is used by the Society for some
fund raising purposes. The "Cancer
Research Advancement Board"
allocates all Research Grants
on behalf of
the Society.
SOCIETY
5 N o r t h u m b e r l a nd R o ad
D u b l in 4
I r e l a nu
Te!: 6 8 1 8 5 5
IRISH
CANCER
261