154 / 264
GAZETTE
JULY
# Continued from page 114
An application (No. 7229/75) concerning the alleged
interference with family life and the right to found a
family resulting from the refusal to allow an Indian
national to enter the United Kingdom to join his adoptive
father;
An application (No. 7287^75) concerning the alleged
excessiveness of a confiscation of smuggled goods in
Austria;
An application (No. 7428/76) concerning the alleged
partiality of a juror in criminal proceedings in Austria;
An application (No. 7598/76) concerning the alleged
unfairness of administrative proceedings in England under
the Insurance Companies Act 1974;
Three applications (No. 7604/76, 7719/76 and 7781/76)
concerning the length of criminal proceedings in Italy;
An application (No. 7639/76) by a divorced father
concerning his access to his children in Denmark;
An application (No. 7648/76) concerning detention in
Switzerland.
B. Examination of Admitted Applications
The Commission also continued its examination of a
number of admitted applications.
I. Reports adopted
The Commission adopted its Reports under Art. 31 of
the Convention in the following cases:
1. Luedicke, Belkecem and Koc v. the Federal Republic
of Germany
These cases concern the costs of interpretation in criminal
proceedings.
2. Times Newspapers v. the United Kingdom
This case concerns an injunction which restrained the
applicants from publishing an article dealing with
Thalidomide children.
II. Continued examination of other admissible
applications
1. Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
The applicant complains of his detention as a mental
patient. The Commission heard the parties' oral
submissions on the merits of the application.
2. Liebig v. the Federal Republic of Germany
The applicant complains of the court decision by which
he was refused reimbursement of the costs of his defence
when criminal proceedings against him were
discontinued. The Commission decided to hold a hearing
of the parties.
3. Briiggemann and Scheuten v. the Federal Republic of
Germany
The applicants submit that the criminal law concerning
the interruption of pregnancy violates their right to
respect for their private life. TTie Commission heard the
parties' oral submissions on the merits of the application.
4. Eggs against Switzerland
This case concerns strict detention as a measure of
military discipline. The Commission decided to hold a
hearing of the parties.
Proceedings of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities
JUDGMENT
Case 11/77 — Patrick v. Ministre des Affaires Culturelles
— (reference for a preliminary ruling) — 28 June 1977 —
Freedom of establishment.
In the wake of the lawyers (Cases 2/74, Reyners, and
71/76, Thieffry), an architect has prompted the Court of
Justice to interpret Articles 52 to 54 of the EEC Treaty
concerning the right of establishment.
Mr. Patrick, a British national who holds the certificate
of the Architectural Association and who wished to
transfer his office to France, applied for authorization to
practice the profession of architect there. His application
was rejected by decision of the Minister for Cultural
Affairs dated 9 August 1973, on the ground that such
authorization "pursuant to the provisions of the Law of
31 December 1940 continues to be exceptional if there is
no reciprocal agreement between France and the
applicant's country of origin". The ministerial decision
continues that in the absence of a specific agreement for
this purpose between the Member States of the EEC and
in particular between France and the United Kingdom,
the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community cannot take the place of such an agreement,
since Articles 52 and 58 concerning freedom of
establishment refer, for the attainment of that objective,
to Council directives which have not yet been issued.
This case led the Tribunal Administratif de Paris to ask
the Court of Justice whether, "in the State of Community
Law on 9 August 1973 . . . a British national was entitled
to invoke in his favour the benefit of the right of
establishment to practice the profession of architect in a
Member State of the Community".
The Court did not accept the argument that the direct
effect of the rule of equal treatment with nationals
contained in Article 52 is weakened by the fact that the
Council has not issued the directives provided for in
Articles 54 and 57.
The Court stated that, in fact, after the expiry of the
transitional period the directives provided for by the
Chapter on the right of establishment have become
superfluous with regard to implementing the rule on
nationality, since this is henceforth sanctioned by the
Treaty itself with direct effect. With regard to the new
Member States and their nationals, the principle
contained in Article 52 takes full effect after the entry into
force of the Treaty of Accession, that is on 1 January
1973.
The Court ruled that, with effect from 1 January 1973,
a national of a new Member State who can produce a
qualification recognized by the competent authorities of
the Member State of establishment as equivalent to the
diploma issued and required in that State enjoys the right
to be admitted to the profession of architect and to
practice it under the same conditions as nationals of the
Member State of establishment without being required to
satisfy any additional conditions.
Thus, pursuing the terminology of the case, the Court
of Justice has placed a new "brick" in the wall of freedom
of establishment, which is one of the keynotes of the
Community.
119