## Facts

- The Netherlands Bar adopted rules regulating joint professional practice that prohibited integrated partnerships between lawyers and accountants.
- J.C.J. Wouters, a Dutch lawyer, sought to practice law within a tax-consulting firm linked to an accounting-services network.
- The Rotterdam Bar’s Supervisory Board treated the proposed structure as a prohibited lawyer–accountant partnership and disallowed it under the Bar regulation.
- Wouters and related parties challenged the prohibition before the Netherlands Council of State, arguing it violated EC Treaty competition rules and free-movement provisions.
- The national court referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Treaty provisions addressing competition and establishment/services.

## Issues

1. Whether lawyers providing legal services for remuneration are “undertakings,” and whether the Netherlands Bar acts as an “association of undertakings” whose professional rules can be a “decision” subject to EC competition law.
2. Whether the ban on lawyer–accountant partnerships restricts competition under Article 85(1) EC, and if so, whether it nevertheless falls outside that prohibition because it is necessary for the proper practice of the legal profession.
3. Whether the Bar’s conduct constitutes an abuse of a collective dominant position under Article 86 EC.
4. Whether the ban restricts freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, and whether any restriction is justified.

## Decision

- The Court held that lawyers who provide legal assistance for remuneration are undertakings, and the Bar can constitute an association of undertakings for purposes of Article 85 EC.
- The partnership ban was a decision capable of restricting competition, but it did not infringe Article 85(1) EC because, in its context, it pursued legitimate objectives linked to the proper practice of the legal profession and was reasonably necessary for those objectives.
- The Court found no violation of Article 86 EC, rejecting the claim that the Bar held and abused a collective dominant position.
- The Court accepted that the rule could restrict establishment and services, but held the restriction justified by requirements related to the proper practice of the legal profession and the sound administration of justice, subject to necessity and proportionality.

## Legal Principles

- Providers of professional services for remuneration may qualify as “undertakings,” and professional regulators may qualify as “associations of undertakings” whose rules can fall within competition-law scrutiny.
- A measure that restricts competition may fall outside the Article 85(1) prohibition when, considering the overall context and objectives, the restriction is necessary for legitimate regulatory aims tied to the proper functioning of the profession (including independence, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflicts).
- Assessment under Article 85(1) may require examining whether restrictive effects are inherent in and proportionate to non-economic objectives connected to the administration of justice.
- Treaty free-movement rules can apply to collectively binding professional regulations, including those adopted by non-state bodies.
- Restrictions on establishment or services may be justified by overriding requirements related to the proper practice of the legal profession if the measure is necessary and proportionate.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Netherlands Bar’s prohibition on integrated lawyer–accountant partnerships, holding that although the rule could restrict competition and free movement, it was justified as necessary and proportionate to safeguard core duties of the legal profession and the administration of justice.


Wouters v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Case C-309/99, [2002] E.C.R. I-1577 (C.J.E.U. 2002)