Mac Quen (Free movement of persons) [2001] EUECJ C-108/96 (01 February 2001)

Mac Quen (Free movement of persons) [2001] EUECJ C-108/96 (01 February 2001)

Article 52 EC Treaty does not preclude Member States from reserving objective eyesight examinations to ophthalmologists for public health reasons, provided national law is applied non-discriminatorily and proportionately; national court must assess validity of prosecutions in light of Treaty requirements.

Citation
[2001] EUECJ C-108/96
Parties
Accused: Ms Godts; Accused: Mr Mac Quen; Accused: Mr Antoun; Accused: Mr Pouton; Employer/civilly Liable: Grandvision Belgium SA; Complainant/civil Plaintiff: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire (UPBMO)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
01 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (ecj) on Criminal Proceedings / Post Referral, Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Preliminary ruling: Article 52 EC Treaty does not preclude national interpretation reserving objective eyesight examinations to ophthalmologists for public health reasons; national court to assess validity of prosecutions.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Establishment, Practice of Medicine, Public Health Protection, Non Discrimination, Proportionality, Free Movement of Goods
EU Law Medical Law Criminal Law Freedom of Establishment Practice of Medicine Public Health Protection Non Discrimination Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Godts

Accused

Mr Mac Quen

Accused

Mr Antoun

Accused

Mr Pouton

Accused

Grandvision Belgium SA

Employer/civilly Liable

Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire (UPBMO)

Complainant/civil Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (ecj) on Criminal Proceedings / Post Referral, Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Compatibility of national prohibition on opticians conducting objective eyesight examinations with Articles 5, 30, 52, and 59 EC Treaty
  2. 2 Justification of restrictions on freedom of establishment for public health reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Article 52 EC Treaty does not preclude Member States from reserving objective eyesight examinations to ophthalmologists for public health reasons, provided national law is applied non-discriminatorily and proportionately; national court must assess validity of prosecutions in light of Treaty requirements.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling: Article 52 EC Treaty does not preclude national interpretation reserving objective eyesight examinations to ophthalmologists for public health reasons; national court to assess validity of prosecutions.

Orders

  • Costs for Commission not recoverable; costs for main parties to be decided by national court