The Gazette 1977

JULY

GAZETTE

# 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: 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 Proceedings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

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. 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