Activites

• 1998/03/14 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1998/5
  • OJ L 077 14.03.1998, p. 0036
• 1998/02/16 Final act signed
• 1998/02/16 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2060
• 1997/12/15 Council Meeting
• 1997/11/19 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0548/1997 summary

    In adopting the recommendation for second reading by Mrs Nicole FONTAINE (PPE, F), the European Parliament has approved the common position of the Council without amendments. The Council's point of view actually differs in only one respect, namely on how to treat lawyers who do not satisfy the 'maximum' requirements for exemption from the obligation to prove that they have effectively and regularly pursued, for a period of at least three years, an activity in the host Member State in the law of that State. Parliament is of the opinion that the changes made to the text and the rejection of some of its amendments by the Council have very little influence on the main options and the general approach of the future directive. It welcomes the meeting of minds between the Commission, Parliament and Council throughout the examination of the proposal. �

• 1997/11/18 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    Noting that most of the amendments adopted at first reading had been taken over by the Council, the rapporteur invited Parliament to approve the common position as presented so that the legal profession could move further toward its opening up within Europe. Commissioner Monti was keen to stress that this had been an exemplary case of cooperation between the institutions. He therefore guaranteed that the Commission would pay careful attention to the correct implementation of the directive.

• 1997/10/27 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0337/1997
• 1997/09/18 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2026
• 1997/07/24 Council Meeting
  • 08423/1/1997 summary

    The common position taken over Parliament's main amendments, accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal, particularly those concerning the permanent nature of establishment under the home-country professional title and the replacement of the aptitude test by a procedure for the verification of professional qualifications. The common position does not include the amendments which oblige the host Member State to allow salaried practice, except in matters where lawyers represented or defended in the administration of justice the enterprise that employed them. The Commission also rejected the amendments on the inclusion of Dutch 'procureurs', a proof of good repute and social security. The new provisions introduced by the Council related mainly to access to the supreme courts and to information on disciplinary procedures extended to the home Member State. The Commission also requested to present a report after an initial implementing period of ten years from the entry into force of the Directive. The amendments, which were confined to clarifying the rules already laid down, differ little from Parliament's opinion and relate to the acquisition of the professional title of the host Member State and joint practice. Some minor amendments were also taken to take account of developments in the profession in Italy, compliance with the procedural rules and the fact that certain Member States permit the participation of family members in groupings of lawyers. �

• #2007
• 1997/05/21 Council Meeting
• 1996/09/24 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0446 summary

    The Commission's amended proposal incorporates Parliament's main amendments, in particular those concerning the permanent character of establishment under the home-country professional title and the replacement of the aptitude test by a verification procedure for professional qualifications. Also taken over were amendments concerning the alignment of salaried practice on Council Directive 77/249/EEC on the free provision of services by lawyers and consolidation of the host Member State's powers to oppose groupings controlled by persons outside the profession. However, the Commission was unable to accept the amendments which provided for the inclusion of Dutch 'procureurs', the exclusion of lawyers who have responsibilities within a government department, proof of honourability, and the obligation for the host Member State to exempt migrant lawyers from the requirement to join its social security scheme. �

• 1996/06/19 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0338/1996 summary

    Parliament adopted the report by Mrs Nicole FONTAINE (PPE, F) on the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained. With regard to integration into the profession in the host Member State, Parliament proposed replacing the aptitude test provided for by the Commission in order to accede to the professional title of the host Member State, with an objective assessment. The competent authority of the host Member State would take account of the migrant lawyers' professional experience in the host Member State and their attendance at lectures or seminars on the host Member States' law, including the rules regulating professional practice and conduct. Contrary to the Commission, which sought to limit the right to practise under the Home Country professional title to a period of five years, the EP wanted the right to practise to be on a permanent basis. The competent authority of the host Member State which registers the lawyer must ask the competent authority of the home Member State for an attestation certifying that the lawyer concerned fulfils the conditions of honour, honorability and probity pertaining to the duties of a lawyer. With regard to joint practice, Parliament considered that the host Member State could refuse to allow a lawyer to practise in its territory if the capital of the grouping is held, the name under which it practices is used or the decision-making power is exercised by persons who do not have the status of lawyer. Moreover, where the fundamental rules governing a grouping of such lawyers are incompatible with the rules in force in the host Member State, the host Member State may oppose the opening of a branch or agency within its territory. Parliament also wished to exclude lawyers holding a ministerial office from the scope of the directive. Finally, lawyers practising under their home-country titles should be able, at their request, to be exempted from the requirement to join the social security scheme for lawyers of the host Member State, provided they can prove they are members of an equivalent social security scheme for lawyers in their Member State of origin. �

• 1996/06/18 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mrs Fontaine (EPP, F), said that the ultimate objective of the directive aimed at facilitating the practice of the profession of lawyer was to compensate for the inadequacies of the general directive adopted in 1989, since in the course of the four years in which this directive had been in force only one significant case had been recorded of non home-country lawyers being given freedom to practise, and this had been in Luxembourg. Mrs Fontaine referred to the two criteria on which the amended directive would be based: objective assessment by the profession, and respect for the spirit and the letter of the Treaty as clarified by the recent legal precedent set by the Gebhard ruling. Among the measures featuring in the proposal the rapporteur referred in particular to the withdrawal of the aptitude test for those wishing to join the Bar in the host country and the opportunity for non-national lawyers to practise for an unlimited period under their home-country professional title, subject to the same professional rules and code of ethics of the host country. Finally, Mrs Fontaine pointed out that the new freedom that the directive would give to the profession of lawyer was essential if European legal practices were to compete with the major law firms operating outside the Community. Commissioner Monti declared that the Commission could accept the main amendments, including Amendment No 10 on the abolition of the five years of experience required before being allowed to practise under the home-country professional title and Amendment No 24 on the aptitude test. This only left the secondary amendments that concerned matters of principle, namely Amendments Nos 7 and 9 (exclusion of lawyers holding ministerial office) and Amendments Nos 12 and 21 (obligation on the host country to allow exemption from the requirement to join the social security scheme). As regards the eight supplementary amendments, Mr Monti said that he could not accept them if they were incompatible with those that had been submitted by the Legal Affairs Committee: this was the case with Amendments Nos 29 to 33. In conclusion, the Commissioner cited some examples of the professional rules that had to be respected, namely the ban in certain Member States on operating two legal practices in their territory and the ban on certain activities that were detrimental to the independence of lawyers and to professional confidentiality; finally, he stressed the important links between market uniformity and the directive in question.

• 1996/04/24 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0146/1996
• 1995/04/07 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1994/12/21 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1994)0572 summary

    1) OBJECTIVE: to facilitate the practice of the profession of self-employed or salaried lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained. 2) CONTENT: 1. Definitions of the following terms: "lawyer", "Member State of origin", "host Member State", "home-country professional title", "group". 2. This directive applies both to self-employed and salaried lawyers practising in the host Member State. 3. Lawyers wishing to practise in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must register with the competent authority in that State. 4. Lawyers not yet fully integrated into the profession in the host Member State may practise in that state under their home-country professional title. After three years of effective and regular practice in the host Member State in the law of that Member State, including Community law, the lawyer is presumed to have acquired the skills needed to integrate fully into the legal profession in the host Member State and, as such, need not take the aptitude test. However, lawyers who have not practised in the law of the host Member State or in Community law must take an aptitude test on procedural law and the code of professional ethics in the host Member State. 5. Although there are exceptions (in the United Kingdom and Ireland, see article 5), lawyers practising under their home-country professional title will be engaged in the same professional activities as lawyers in the host Member State and, more importantly, may be consulted on the law of their Member State of origin, on Community law, on international law and on the law of the host Member State. 6. One or more lawyers practising under their home-country professional titles in a host Member State who are members of the same group in their Member State of origin may practise as a branch or agency of their group in the host Member State. 7. Lawyers practising under their home-country professional title may be subject to disciplinary proceedings in the host Member State. Source: European Commission - Info92 - 10/95�

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1994)0572
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0146/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0338/1996
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0446
• Council position published: 08423/1/1997
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0337/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0548/1997
• : Directive 1998/5
• : OJ L 077 14.03.1998, p. 0036

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)