¹ The pass rate for the last three editions of the written tests was as follows: 47.63% in 2014; 41.11% for 2013; 36.34% for 2012; 38.32% for 2011. See ‘Esame di avvocato 2013: risultati definitivi e ammessi agli orali’, Altalex, 21 July 2014, <www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=67802>, visited 18 July 2015; ‘Esame di avvocato 2012: risultati definitivi e ammessi agli orali’, Altalex, 26 June 2013, <www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=63185>, visited 18 July 2015; ‘Esame di avvocato 2011: risultati e ammessi agli orali’, Altalex, 12 July 2012, <www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=57596>, visited 18 July 2015.

² 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, OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, pp. 36-43.

³ Art. 10 of Directive 98/5.

⁴ CNF Ufficio Studi, ‘Avvocati CNF, Avvocati stabiliti e abuso del diritto dell’unione europea: la raccolta dati dell’ufficio studi del Consiglio Nazionale Forense’, 9 January 2014, <www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/site/home/pubblicazioni/dossier-ufficio-studi/documento7575.html>, visited 18 July 2015; see also CNF press release of 6 February 2014, <www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/site/home/area-stampa/comunicati-stampa/articolo8483.html>, visited 18 July 2015.

⁵ Royal Decree no. 285 of 20 February 2004, Spanish Official Journal no. 55 of 4 March 2004.

⁶ ECJ 19 September 2006, Case C-506/04, Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (‘Wilson’) para 67.

⁷ CNF 29 September 2012, Order no. 1/2013, Angelo Alberto Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata; CNF 29 September 2012, Order no. 2/2013, Pierfrancesco Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata. The two orders have same content (except for the personal details of the parties) and paragraph numbering, thus they will be jointly referred to as ‘the order for reference’.

⁸ AG Wahl, Opinion 10 April 2014, Joined Cases C-58/13 and C-59/13, Angelo Alberto Torresi and Pierfrancesco Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata (‘Torresi Opinion’).

⁹ ECJ 17 July 2014, Joint Cases C-58/13 and C-59/13, Angelo Alberto Torresi and Pierfrancesco Torresi v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Macerata (‘Torresi’).

¹⁰ That expression is used to refer to lawyers who have obtained their professional qualification in a member state other than the one where they apply for registration as established lawyers under Directive 98/5.

¹¹ Wilson, supra n. 6, para 57.

¹² ECJ 30 November 1995, Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (‘Gebhard’). The question of the qualification of the CNF as a ‘jurisdiction’ for the purposes of Art. 177 EC was the object of analysis in the AG Opinion (see para 12-17), who concluded in the affirmative, but was not explicitly examined by the Court.

¹³ Torresi Opinion, supra n. 8, para 46.

¹⁴ Ibid., para 49.

¹⁵ Ibid., para 53.

¹⁶ Ibid., para 54.

¹⁷ See, e.g., ECJ 19 September 2013, Case C-140/12, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey, para 49: ‘According to settled case-law, the terms used in a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope are normally to be given throughout the Community an autonomous and uniform interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question’.

¹⁸ AG Saggio, Opinion 29 September 1998, Case C-90/97, Robin Swaddling v The Adjudication Officer, para 16.

¹⁹ ECJ 13 February 2014, Case C-555/13, Merck Canada v Accord Healthcare et al., para 16. (holding that determining whether a body making a reference is a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU ‘is a question governed by EU law alone’); ECJ 31 January 2013, Case C-394/11, Belov, para 38.

²⁰ The Italian Constitutional Court, for instance, has, ever since its judgment no. 13 of 1960, consistently refused to submit preliminary questions to the ECJ insofar as it did not consider itself a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU. That Court changed its mind on the matter only recently and referred questions to the ECJ both in the context of adversarial proceedings (order no. 103 of 2008) and preliminary proceedings (order no. 207 of 2013).

²¹ Torresi, para 14.

²² Ibid., paras 21-24.

²³ Ibid., para 25.

²⁴ ECJ 30 September 2003, Case C-167/01, Inspire Art, para 136; ECJ 9 March 1999, Case C-212/96, Centros, para 24; ECJ 12 September 2006, Case C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, para 35; and ECJ 23 October 2008, Case C-286/06, Commission v Spain, para 69.

²⁵ Wilson, supra n. 6, para 66.

²⁶ Ibid., para 67.

²⁷ Ibid., paras 70 and 77.

²⁸ See, generally, Arena, A., Il principio della preemption in diritto dell’Unione Europea (Editoriale Scientifica 2013)Google Scholar; Cross, E., ‘Pre-emption of Member State Law in the European Economic Community: A Framework for Analysis’, 29 CMLRev (1992) p. 447Google Scholar; Soares, A. Goucha, ‘Pre-Emption, Conflicts of Powers and Subsidiarity’, 23 ELRev (1998) p. 132Google Scholar; Schütze, R., ‘Supremacy Without Pre-emption? The Very Slowly Emergent Doctrine of Community Pre-emption’, 43 CMLRev (2006) p 1023Google Scholar; Waelbroeck, M., ‘The Emergent Doctrine of Community Pre-emption: Consent and Redelegation’, in T. Sandalow and E. Stein (eds.), Courts and Free Markets: Perspectives from the United States and Europe, vol. 2 (OUP 1982) p. 548Google Scholar.

²⁹ See Weatherill, S., ‘Beyond Preemption? Shared Competence and Constitutional Change in the European Community’, in O’Keeffe and Twomey (eds.), Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (Chancery Law Publishing 1994) p. 13Google Scholar at p. 52-57.

³⁰ See ECJ 7 November 2000, Case C-168/98, Luxembourg v Parliament and Council, para 32 and 33; Wilson, supra n. 6, para 71.

³¹ See Directive 89/48 recital no. 10 and Art. 4(1)(b); Directive 2005/36, Art. 14(3).

³² See Directive 77/249, Art. 2; Directive 98/5, Art. 2.

³³ See Directive 77/249, Art. 3; Directive 98/5, Art. 4.

³⁴ See Directive 77/249, Art. 5; Directive 98/5, Art. 5(3).

³⁵ See Directive 77/249, Art. 4(2); Directive 98/5, Art. 6.

³⁶ See Arena, A., ‘La sentenza Wilson’, 3 Studi sull’integrazione europea (2008) p. 147Google Scholar at p. 164-165.

³⁷ On the arguments the ECJ employs to overcome previous findings of field preemption see Arena, supra n. 28, p. 57-58 (discussing how the ECJ in Michaniki distinguished La Casina).

³⁸ Cross, E., ‘Pre-emption of Member State law in the European Economic Community: A framework for analysis’, 29 CMLRev, (1992) p. 447Google Scholar at p. 459: ‘all Member State measures in an occupied field will be considered invalid, even when such measures are not contrary to, or do not obstruct the objectives of, Community legislation in any way’.

³⁹ See Sørensen, K., ‘Abuse of rights in Community Law: a Principle of Substance or Merely Rhetoric?’, 43 CMLRev (2006) p. 423Google Scholar at p. 427-431 (providing a number of examples of how the CJEU defined the scope of EU rights so as to take abusive conduct outside the scope of the EU provisions).

⁴⁰ See ECJ 14 December 2000, Case C-110/99, Emsland-Stärke, para 52 and 53.

⁴¹ See ECJ 13 March 2014, Case C-155/13, SICES and Others, para 32.

⁴² See ECJ 12 March 2014, Case C-456/12, O. and B., para 58.

⁴³ Torresi, para 35 (recalling Art. 1(1) of Directive 98/5).

⁴⁴ Ibid., para 48 (recalling Commission v Spain, C-286/06, para 72).

⁴⁵ Ibid., para 51 (recalling paras 93 and 94 of the Torresi Opinion).

⁴⁶ Given the circumstances of the case, it is quite obvious that the subjective element of the abuse was also fulfilled, i.e. the intention to practice the legal profession in Italy without taking the Italian state examination.

⁴⁷ Ibid., para 52.

⁴⁸ ECJ 29 January 2009, Case C-311/06, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia and Marco Cavallera.

⁴⁹ In the wake of the Cavallera judgment, the CNF adopted Opinion no. 17 of 25 June 2009 and Notice no. 9 of 5 May 2011 where it argued that local Bar Council was entitled to check whether registration applications by European lawyers were based on ‘purely formal’ foreign professional qualifications that were not associated with any professional experience abroad.

⁵⁰ CNF, Order of 29 September 2012, para 19.

⁵¹ ECJ 29 January 2009, Case C-311/06, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia e Marco Cavallera (‘Cavallera’), paras 58 and 59.

⁵² Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro of 28 February 2008, Cavallera (‘Cavallera Opinion’), para 48.

⁵³ Ibid. (recalling ECJ 12 September 2006, Case C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, para 53).

⁵⁴ Ibid., para 50 (recalling ECJ 2 July 1998, Joined Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95, Kapasakalis and others, para 22).

⁵⁵ Ibid, para 56.

⁵⁶ Ibid, para 54.

⁵⁷ ECJ 7 November 2000, Case C-168/98, Luxembourg v Parliament and Council.

⁵⁸ Ibid., para 43 (emphasis added).

⁵⁹ Directive 98/5 recital no. 7 (emphasis added).

⁶⁰ Ibid., recital no. 9 (emphasis added).

⁶¹ See, e.g., <www.avvocatospagnaeurolex.com/avvocato-spagna-avvocato-stabilito-in-3-mosse>, visited 22 July 2015.

⁶² Italian Council of State 30 November 2009, no. 7496, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia and Marco Cavallera.

⁶³ Article 33, para 5 of the Italian Constitution reads as follows: ‘State examinations are prescribed for admission to and graduation from the various branches and grades of schools and for qualification to exercise a profession’ (emphasis added). See Parliamentary Information, Archives and Publications Office of the Italian Senate, ‘Constitution of the Italian Republic’, available at: <www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf>, visited 18 July 2015.

⁶⁴ For a deeper analysis on this principle see inter alia von Bogdandy, A. and Schill, S., ‘Overcoming Absolute Supremacy: Respect for National Identity under the Lisbon Treaty’ 48 CMLRev (2011) p. 1431Google Scholar; Guastaferro, B., ‘Beyond the Exceptionalism of Constitutional Conflicts: the Ordinary Functions of the Identity Clause’, 31 Oxford Y.B. Eur. L. (2012) p. 263Google Scholar; Schyff, G. van der, ‘The Constitutional Relationship between the European Union and its Member States: the Role of National Identity in Art. 4(2) TEU’, 37 ELRev (2012) p. 563Google Scholar; Millet, F.-X., L’Union européenne et l’identité constitutionnelle des États membres (LGDJ 2013)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ In other cases the clause is invoked by member states or private persons concerned as a tentative justification of national measures introducing restrictions on free movement and market freedoms, or as a rule of interpretation of existing internal market grounds for derogation. See Guastaferro, supra n. 64, p. 293ff.

⁶⁶ ECJ 15 March 2005, Case C-160/03, Spain v Eurojust.

⁶⁷ ECJ 1 October 2010, Case C-3/10, Affatato v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (‘Affatato’), where an Italian tribunal referred a question of validity of clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Directive 1999/70. As in the present case, on the basis of the interpretation given to the above mentioned provision of the Directive, the Court excluded any negative impact of the clause with the Italian constitutional provision according to which permanent posts in the public service must be filled on the basis of public competition (Art. 97).

⁶⁸ See L. Besselink et al., National Constitutional Avenues for Further EU Integration, document requested by the European Parliament's Committees on Legal Affairs and on Constitutional Affairs (Brussels 2014), <www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493046/IPOL-JURI_ET(2014)493046_EN.pdf>, visited 18 July 2015, p. 8: ‘Accordingly, if the Union should fail to respect these national identities as inherent in their fundamental constitutional and political structures, it would infringe not only those identities, but also the Treaty obligation to respect them. Whether this is indeed the case is, as a matter of EU law, to be decided ultimately by the Court of Justice of the Union, and not unilaterally by the Member States’ (emphasis added).

⁶⁹ Affatato, supra n. 67, para 41. In the same direction see ECJ 1 March 2012, Case C-393/10, O’Brien. The Court held on that occasion that its conclusion, reached in the same judgment, that judges might be regarded as ‘workers’ within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC, in no way undermines the principle of the independence of the judiciary. This solution, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be questioned on the basis of the argument that the application of EU law to the judiciary has the result that the national identities of the member states are not respected, contrary to Art. 4(2) TEU. In reply to this argument advanced by one of the governments in the written procedure, the Court held that ‘the application, with respect to part-time judges remunerated on a daily fee-paid basis, of Directive 97/81 and the Framework Agreement on part-time work cannot have any effect on national identity, but merely aims to extend to those judges the scope of the principle of equal treatment, which constitutes one of the objectives of those acts, and to protect them against discrimination as compared with full-time workers’ (para 49).

⁷⁰ See ECJ 17 December 1970, Case C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, para 3. See also ECJ 16 December 2008, Case C-213/07, Michaniki, para 61ff.; for a more ‘generous’ approach see ECJ 22 December 2010, Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein, para 83ff.

⁷¹ See on this point Kumm, M. and Comella, V. Ferrerres, ‘The primacy clause of the constitutional treaty and the future of constitutional conflict in the European Union’, 3 ICON (2005) p. 476Google Scholar; von Bogdandy and Schill, supra n. 64, p. 1419; Besselink, L., ‘National and Constitutional Identity Before and After Lisbon’, 6 Utrecht Law Review (2010) p. 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Guastaferro, supra n. 64, p. 300.

⁷³ Torresi, para 57.

⁷⁴ Ibid., para 58.

⁷⁵ ECJ 7 November 2000, Case C-168/98, Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council.

⁷⁶ Ibid., para 23-29.

⁷⁷ Directive 98/5, Art. 5.

⁷⁸ See on this point Capotorti, F., ‘Abogados senza limiti?’, 97 Rivista di diritto internazionale (2014) p. 1175Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ The judgments in cases Luxembourg v Parliament and Council, Wilson and Torresi (all cited above) clearly follow the same line of reasoning.

⁸⁰ See inter alia ECJ 12 December 1996, Case C-3/95, Reisebüro Broede v Sandker, para 38.

⁸¹ ECJ 7 November 2000, Case C-168/98, Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council, para 43.

⁸² Ley 34/2006.