Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg
National rules that may hinder or make less attractive the exercise of free movement by EU nationals, even without discrimination, must be justified and proportionate.
Facts
Mr Kraus, a German national, obtained a postgraduate law degree, an LLM, from the University of Edinburgh. Under German law, he needed official authorisation to use the title in Germany, which was granted only after an administrative procedure and payment of a fee. Failure to obtain authorisation was a criminal offence. He argued that this was contrary to the free movement of workers.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the rules were capable of hampering or rendering less attractive the exercise by EU nationals, including those of the state which enacted the measure, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. Such rules can be justified only if they pursue a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and are justified by pressing reasons of public interest, and if they are appropriate and do not go beyond what is necessary. Protecting the public against misleading use of academic titles was a legitimate aim, but the authorisation procedure must be simple and proportionate, and the penalties must not be disproportionate.
Related cases on free movement of workers
- Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium Joined Cases 115/81 and 116/81, [1982] ECR 1665
- Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 344/87, [1989] ECR 1621
- Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln Case 67/74, [1975] ECR 297
- Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Case C-138/02, [2004] ECR I-2703
- Commission v Belgium (Public service) Case 149/79, [1980] ECR 3881
- Groener v Minister for Education Case 379/87, [1989] ECR 3967
- Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 139/85, [1986] ECR 1741
- Lair v Universität Hannover Case 39/86, [1988] ECR 3161
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
