II. Free movement of persons

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 168-175

  Lonbay, Jules ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85023148664     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/50.1.168     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Lonbay, J., “Free movement of persons, recognition of qualifications, and working conditions” (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 224 at 228.
2. See Peers (1999) 48 I.C.L.Q.
3. Art. 69.
4. See Walker in (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 231 at 237.
5. There are exceptions recognised in Art. 67(3).
6. Art. 68(2).
7. Art. 68(3).
8. Case 340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] E.C.R. I-2357
9. See Lonbay (1992) 41 I.C.L.Q. 212 at 215
10. Lonbay “Picking over the bones; rights of establishment reviewed” (1991) 16 E.L.Rev. 507.
11. Case C-234/97 Teresa Fernández de Bobadilla v. Prado Museum [1999] E.C.R. I- (8 July 1999).
12. Idem, at para 27.
13. C-164/94 Aranitis v. Land Berlin [1996] E.C.R. I-135
14. see further Lonbay (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 224 at 231.
15. Directive 1999/42/EC establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifications; [1999] O.J. L201/77.
16. Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Feb. 1998 to facilitate the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained. [1998] O.J. L77/36.
17. See Lonbay “Lawyers bounding over the borders: the draft directive on lawyers' establishment” (1996) 21 E.L.Rev. 50–58.
18. Directive 98/5/EC Art. 3. In fact lawyers could establish in the U.K. under home State title even before this Directive without registering.
19. Art. 3(3) seeks to preserve the distinctions between barrister/advocate and solicitor in the U.K. and Ireland.
20. Art. 7 allows the application of the local disciplinary regime and provides for communication between the host State authorities and those in the home Member State.
21. Adamson, H., Free Movement of Lawyers (Butterworths, 2nd ed.) p.107.
22. See Lonbay (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 224 at 246
23. noted at (1996) 33 C.M.L.Rev. 1073.
24. Art. 10(4) allows the possibility of a “public policy” based refusal.
25. Luxembourg has challenged the validity of the Directive before the European Court of Justice. The Advocate General M. Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer has dismissed their arguments. Case C-168/98 Luxembourg v. Council (24 Feb. 2000) http://europa.eu.int/jurisp.
26. Art. 11(5) provides a blocking power to prevent multi-disciplinary partnerships from operating in a host State.
27. SI 2000:1119 The European Communities (Lawyer's Practice) Regulations 2000
28. SI 2000: 121 The European Communities (Lawyers' Practice) (Scotland) Regulations.