Report for the Hearing in Case C-310/90

I — Relevant provínoos

A — Community legislation

The relevant provisioni of Directive 85/384/EEC, which applies in the field of architecture, are the following:

Articles 7 to 9 oí Directive 85/384/EEC introduced a procedure whereby the list of diplomas to be mutually recognized was to be published for information purposes in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Each Member Sute must communicate to the Commission and to the other Member Sutes the list of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which are awarded within its territory and which it considers meet the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive.

If neither the Commission nor any of the Member Sutes has doubts concerning any of them, the list is published. If the Commission or a Member Sute has doubts as to whether a diploma meets the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4, the Commission may ask the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for an opinion. That opinion is not binding because even if it is a negative one the qualification must be included in the abovementioned list if the relevant Member Sute does not amend its communication, unless another Member Sute or the Commission brings the matter before the Court of Justice under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the directive.

The list of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which was drawn up under that procedure was published in a Commission communication, No 88/C 270/03 in Official Journal C 270 of 19 October 1988, p. 3. The list was updated by means of Commission communication 89/C 205/06 published in Official Journal C 205 of 10 August 1989, p. 5. Both notices sute that the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications published in the list must be recognized in the case of students who commenced their studies in architecture during the 1988/89 academic year.

Article 10 of the directive reads as follows:

Each Member Sute shall recognize the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications set out in Article 11, awarded by other Member Sutes to nationals of the Member Sutes, where such nationals already possess these qualifications at the time of notification of this directive or their studies leading to such diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications commences during the third academic year at the latest following such notification, even if those qualifications do not fulfil the minimum requirements laid down in Chapter II, by giving them as regards the taking up and pursuit of the activities referred to in Article 1 and subject to compliance with Article 23, the same effect within its territory as the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which it awards in architecture.

Article 11 reads as follows:

Article 31(1) of the direttive states that Member Sutes are to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive within 24 months of its notification.

B — Qualifications in architecture available in the Federal Republic of Germany

The relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, and those of the other Member States, communicated to the Commission a list of the education and training on the basis of which the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications meeting the criteria laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive could be delivered, for the purposes of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities in accordance with Article 7 of the directive. The list mentioned 42 courses, of which 18 were said to last for four years, including practical semesters (Praxissemester) which form part of the course and arc supervised by the Fachhochschule. The Constance Fachhochschule is regarded as giving courses which last for four years.

After one of the Member Sutes expressed doubts as to the diplomas awarded by the Fachhochschulen, the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture issued an opinion on 29 July 1987 pursuant to Article 8 of the directive.

In the opinion it was stated that the courses conducted by the Fachhochschulen and the Universität-Gesamthochschulen which include a practical semester did not appear to satisfy the provision requiring that the total duration of the education and training must consist of a minimum of four years of fulltime studies in view of the fan that the practical semester, although an integral pan of the course, did not have the same value as a term's full year study at an educational establishment. Consequently, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the directive, that is to say the additional requirement of four years' professional experience, should be applied to all qualifications in architecture delivered by the Fachhochschulen, except the Fachhochschule in Kiel, which has four year courses with no practical semester.

In a new communication from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany dated 14 October 1987 the German authorities reiterated their claim that the 18 four-year courses, including that in the Constance Fachhochschule, should be recognized by the other Member Sutes.

They maintained that the qualifications delivered on completion of those courses satisfied the conditions laid down in Article 4(1 )(a) of the directive.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany based its claim on the argument that the practical semesters were an integral part of the course, that the content of the course was laid down by laws and regulations adopted by the authorities, that the examination rules were approved by the competent minister, that the practical semesters were always incorporated into theoretical studies and always followed by a term of theory culminating in the final examination and, lastly, that the practical semesters could not qualify as final terms.

Subsequently, the Commission published the list of diplomas communicated by the Federal Republic of Germany with the following footnote: These diplomas are to be recognized under the conditions provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 85/384/EEC either under the first indent or the second indent depending on the duration of the training to which they relate (Official Journal C 270 of 19 October 1988, p. 3 and Official Journal C 205 of 10 August 1989, p. 5).

C — Belgian legislation

Directive 85/384/EEC was transposed into Belgian law by a Royal Decree dated 4 July 1990. The Architects' Association has existed in Belgium since 1963 and no-one may practice as an architect in that country unless his name has been entered on the register or on the list of trainees.

II — Facts and procedure

1. The respondent in the main action, Mr Egle, who is of German nationality and has lived in Belgium for some years, applied to have his name entered on the register of the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg. Mr Egle holds a diploma from the Department of Architecture (Architektur/Hochbau) of the Constance Fachhochschule dated 25 July 1981 and awarded on completion of four years' study, which included two practical semesters which were an integral pan of the course and which were conducted under the supervision of the Fachhochschule in accordance with the law on Fachhochschulen of the Land Baden-Wünemberg. Mr Egle's application, which was submitted before Directive 85/384/EEC was transposed into Belgian law but after the expiry of the time-limit for transposing it, was rejected by the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg on 29 March 1988.

2. Mr Egle appealed against that decision to the Raad van Beroep van de Orde van Architecten (Appeals Committee of the Architects' Association) which held in a decision of 12 April 1989 that the Architects' Association of the Province of Limburg had been wrong to reject Mr Egle's application for registration. The Committee based its decision on the fact that Mr Egle held a diploma which must be recognized, pursuant to Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 85/384/EEC, as having the same legal effects as the architect's diploma awarded in Belgium. The Appeals Committee held that there was no reason not to recognize as fulfilling the conditions for recognition laid down in the directive the four years' training completed by Mr Egle, of which the two practical semesters formed an integral part.

3. The Nationale Raad van de Orde van Architecten appealed against that decision to the Hof van Cassatie. It argued that the Appeals Committee had misinterpreted the provisions of Directive 85/384/EEC: Mr Egle's diploma did not satisfy the conditions for recognition laid down by the directive because the two practical semesters should not have been taken into account to make up the four years' fulltime study in his case.

4. The Hof van Cassatie considered that the dispute raised a question concerning the interpretation of the words full-ume studies and therefore by a judgment of 5 October 1990 referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following question:

5. The order making the reference was lodged at the Court Registry on 10 October 1990.

6. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC written observations were lodged by the appellant, represented by R. Butzler, Avocat, Brussels, by the German Government, represented by E. Roder, of the Federal Ministry for the Economy, acting as Agent, by the Italian Government, represented by P. E Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, acting as Agent, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Lasnet and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents.

7. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate Genera] the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preliminary inquiry and to assign the case to the Sixth Chamber.

III — Written observations submitted to the Court

1. According to the appellant it is necessary to determine whether the qualification awarded by the Constance Fachhochschule on completing a four-year course which includes two practical semesters may be regarded as satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 4, or possibly Article 11, of Directive 85/384/EEC.

2. The German Government makes the preliminary remark that this case may serve to clarify an important legal question concerning the interpretation of Directive 85/384/EEC, inasmuch as the establishment of German architects in Belgium has given rise to difficulties on a number of occasions.

4. The Commission observes that instead of listing the diplomas which must be granted mutual recognition, Directive 85/384/EEC lays down the criteria on the basis of which an architectural qualification must be recognized as such in another Member Sute. It is of the opinion that the question referred for preliminary ruling should be answered in the Affirmative. In that regard, it sutes that the concept of fulltime studies comprises two elements.

1 Language aí the cue: Dutch.