Introduction
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Reyners v Belgium (Case 2/74 [1974] ECR 631) constitutes a landmark decision regarding the principle of non-discrimination based on nationality within the then European Economic Community (EEC), now the European Union. This case specifically concerns the right of establishment, a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty of Rome. The Court examined whether national legislation restricting access to certain professions based on nationality is compatible with the Treaty provisions. Key requirements for the right of establishment include the abolition of discriminatory measures and the effective implementation of Treaty obligations by Member States. This analysis requires a detailed examination of Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of one Member State in the territory of another.
The Facts of Reyners v Belgium
Mr. Reyners, a Dutch national holding a Belgian legal qualification, was denied access to the Belgian bar solely due to his nationality. Belgian law at the time reserved access to this profession exclusively for Belgian nationals. Mr. Reyners challenged this exclusion, arguing that it infringed upon his right of establishment as guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU (then Article 52 TEE). The case highlighted the tension between national prerogatives and the overarching objective of creating a common market within the EEC.
The ECJ's Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU
The Court considered whether the legal profession, specifically access to the bar, fell within the scope of Article 49 TFEU. Belgium argued that activities connected with the exercise of official authority were excluded from the Treaty provisions. The ECJ, however, drew a distinction between the core functions essentially linked to official authority and ancillary activities, concluding that access to the bar, while related to the judicial system, did not constitute an exercise of official authority in itself. This clarification established an important precedent for determining the applicability of Article 49 TFEU to various professions.
The Concept of Direct and Indirect Discrimination
Reyners v Belgium significantly contributed to the development of the concept of direct discrimination within EU law. The Belgian legislation explicitly discriminated against non-nationals, creating a clear and direct barrier to entry into the legal profession. The Court affirmed that such direct discrimination based on nationality is incompatible with Article 49 TFEU, absent specific and justified exceptions under the Treaty. While this case primarily focused on direct discrimination, it laid the groundwork for subsequent jurisprudence on indirect discrimination, where seemingly neutral provisions disproportionately affect individuals of a particular nationality.
The Significance of the Transitional Period and Direct Effect
The Treaty of Rome established transitional periods for the implementation of certain provisions, including the right of establishment. Belgium argued that the transitional period justified the discriminatory legislation. The ECJ, however, determined that the expiry of the transitional period automatically rendered Article 49 TFEU directly effective. This meant individuals could rely directly on the Treaty provision before national courts to challenge discriminatory measures. The concept of direct effect is fundamental to the enforcement of EU law and ensuring individual rights within Member States.
The Impact of Reyners v Belgium on Subsequent Jurisprudence
Reyners v Belgium served as an important case for numerous subsequent ECJ judgments regarding the freedom of establishment. The principles established in this case, such as the distinction between core and ancillary activities related to official authority and the direct effect of Article 49 TFEU, have been consistently applied and refined in subsequent case law. Examples include Thieffry (Case 71/75) concerning the recognition of professional qualifications and Gebhard (Case C-55/94) addressing the conditions for exercising professional activities in another Member State. The judgment established the precedence of EU law over conflicting national legislation, further strengthening the single European market.
Conclusion
Reyners v Belgium remains a key case in the jurisprudence of the free movement of persons within the European Union. The ECJ's judgment unequivocally condemned nationality-based discrimination in access to self-employed activities, affirming the direct effect of Article 49 TFEU after the expiry of the transitional period. The case clarifies the scope of Article 49 TFEU, distinguishing between activities directly linked to official authority and those ancillary to it. The principles enshrined in Reyners have strongly influenced subsequent case law, contributing significantly to the development of a single market based on the four fundamental freedoms. The case serves as a powerful reminder of the supremacy of EU law in safeguarding individual rights and supporting economic cooperation among Member States. The direct effect doctrine emphasized in Reyners ensures that individuals can rely on Treaty provisions before national courts, effectively challenging discriminatory measures. This mechanism strengthens the enforcement of EU law and contributes to the realization of a truly unified and nondiscriminatory European market. The distinction between core and ancillary functions, articulated in the context of official authority, offers a method for analyzing various professions and determining the applicability of the right of establishment. This approach remains significant in reviewing the compatibility of national regulations with EU law regarding professional access and practice.
