CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ LEGAL STATUS OF THE NOTARIAL PROFESSION AS A SPECIFIC PROFESSION IN EUROPE LEGAL STATUS OF THE NOTARIAL PROFESSION AS A SPECIFIC PROFESSION IN EUROPE – THE EXAMPLE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND HUNGARY Monika Forejtová Abstract: In 2011, the European Commission brought actions against numerous EU Member States for failure to comply with treaty obligations in that they had reserved access to the profession of notary to their own nationals. The two sides had differing interpretations of Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the Member States treating the profession of notary as a public office, while the bodies of the European Union took a more restrictive view of the application thereof. The Commission’s position was supported by the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”), primarily in the rulings it handed down in May 2011 against Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Greece and Austria. 1 This article focuses on analysing the recent judgment 2 covering the same issue in the cases concerning the Commission versus Hungary and the Commission versus the Czech Republic. Resumé: V roce 2011 podala Evropská komise proti mnoha členským státům EU žalobu za nedodržení smluvních povinností tím, že vyhrazovaly přístup k notářskému povolání vlastním státním příslušníkům. Obě strany se lišily od výkladu článku 51 Smlouvy o fungo- vání Evropské unie, přičemž členské státy považovaly notářské povolání za veřejnou funkci, zatímco orgány Evropské unie se více zabývaly jejich uplatňováním. Postoj Komise podpořil Evropský soudní dvůr (ESD), a to především v rozsudcích vynesených v květnu 2011 pro- ti Belgii, Lucembursku, Německu, Francii, Řecku a Rakousku. Tento článek se zaměřuje na analýzu nedávného rozsudku, který se týká stejné otázky v případech týkajících se Komi- se versus Maďarska a Komise proti České republice. Key words: non-compliance with a treaty obligation, notaries, requirement of nationality, official authority, freedom to provide services, failure to fulfil obligations, notaries, nationality, official authority, free movement of services. On the Author: Associate professor JUDr. Monika Forejtová, Ph.D. is Head of Department, Constitutional and European Union Law (Faculty of Law, University of West Bohemia, Plzeň), Vice-Dean for International Affairs, member of the Czech Bar Association since 2001. Her main areas of interest and scientific research are the prohibition of discrimination, ECJ and ECHR case-law, and the transposition of EU law into the Czech legal system. The process to induct her as an associate professor of the Faculty of Law (University of West Bohemia) has been commenced, and she successfully defended her habilitation thesis in February 2017. 3 1 Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 May 2011 in Cases C-47/08 Commission v Belgium , C-50/08 Commission v France , C-51/08 Commission v Luxembourg , C-52/08 Commission v Portugal , C-53/08 Commission v Austria , C-54/08 Commission v Germany , and C-61/08 Commission v Greece . 2 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 1 February 2017 in Case C-392/15 Commission v Hungary . 3 FOREJTOVÁ, M., Analysis of a Preliminary Ruling. Interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. In: TÖKÖLYOVÁ, T., RACZYNSKI, A. (eds.), Challenges of Today:

197