## Facts

- Reinhard Gebhard, a German national admitted as a *Rechtsanwalt* in Germany, resided and worked in Milan from 1978.
- He worked first as a collaborator and later as an associate in a Milan law partnership.
- In 1989, he opened his own chambers in Milan and worked with Italian lawyers.
- Italian disciplinary proceedings began in 1991, alleging he practiced in Italy on a permanent basis while using the title *avvocato*, contrary to Italian rules limiting non-Italian EU lawyers to temporary services and prohibiting establishment of chambers or a branch office for that purpose.
- In 1991, Gebhard applied for admission to the Milan Bar, invoking EU rules on recognition of professional qualifications and relying on his experience in Italy.
- The Milan Bar Council imposed a six-month suspension in 1992 and did not formally decide his application for enrollment.
- On appeal, Italy’s National Bar Council referred interpretive questions to the EU court concerning Treaty free-movement provisions and EU directives on lawyers’ services and recognition of diplomas.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer practicing from a stable, continuous base in another Member State is governed by freedom of establishment rather than freedom to provide services.
2. What conditions a host Member State must satisfy to justify professional rules that hinder or make less attractive the exercise of freedom of establishment.
3. Whether, and how, the host Member State must assess equivalence of diplomas and training when deciding on admission to a regulated profession.

## Decision

- The court held that a professional activity pursued on a stable and continuous basis from an established base in the host Member State falls under freedom of establishment, not services.
- The court stated that “temporary” services depend on duration, regularity, periodicity, and continuity; even service providers may maintain necessary infrastructure in the host State, but that does not convert genuinely temporary activity into establishment.
- The court articulated a four-part test for assessing national measures that hinder fundamental freedoms: they must be non-discriminatory, justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, suitable to achieve the objective, and not go beyond what is necessary.
- The court held that where access to a profession depends on qualifications, national authorities must consider equivalence of diplomas and, if needed, compare the host State’s required knowledge and training with the migrant professional’s credentials and experience.
- The court provided interpretive criteria and left application to the referring national body.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of establishment applies where an EU national participates in the economic life of a host Member State on a stable and continuous basis from a professional base there.
- Freedom to provide services covers activities that are temporary, assessed by duration, regularity, periodicity, and continuity; a limited office or chambers may be permissible if necessary to perform temporary services.
- National measures that hinder or make less attractive the exercise of establishment are lawful only if they are: (1) non-discriminatory; (2) justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; (3) suitable to attain the objective; and (4) necessary (no more restrictive than required).
- For regulated professions, the host State must assess equivalence of diplomas and training and cannot deny access without an equivalence-based evaluation consistent with EU recognition rules.

## Conclusion

The court classified long-term legal practice from a host-state base as establishment and required host-state professional regulation affecting establishment to satisfy a strict proportionality framework, while also requiring an equivalence-focused assessment of professional qualifications for admission decisions.


Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, Case C-55/94, 1995 E.C.R. I-4165 (C.J.E.C. 1995)