The Gazette 1975

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of professions -notably „ for dentists, architects, accountants, engineers and lawyers (services only) — all these were withdrawn for revision after the Reyncrs decision.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."