- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-58/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Angelo Alberto Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0058
62013CN0058
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.5.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 147/5
(Case C-58/13)
2013/C 147/08
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Angelo Alberto Torresi
Defendant: Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata
Questions referred
1.In the light of the general principle which prohibits any abuse of rights and Article 4(2) TEU, relating to respect for national identities, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (1) to be interpreted as obliging national administrative authorities to register in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad Italian nationals who have conducted themselves in a manner which abuses Union law, and as precluding a national practice which allows such authorities to reject applications for registration in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad where there are objective circumstances to indicate that there has been an abuse of Union law, without prejudice either to respect of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination or to the right of the person concerned to institute legal proceedings in order to argue a possible infringement of the right of establishment and, consequently, the possibility of judicial review of the administrative action in question?
2.If the first question should be answered in the negative, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC, thus interpreted, to be regarded as invalid in light of Article 4(2) TEU, in that it enables circumvention of the rules of a Member State which make access to the legal profession conditional on passing a State examination, given that the Constitution of that Member States makes provision for such an examination and that the examination forms part of the fundamental principles safeguarding consumers of legal services and the proper administration of justice?
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
* * *