Finding against Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen, the ECJ noted that the Dutch ban was a restriction on the ability to provide services, but held that this was justified in the public interest. The Court made clear that despite the effect on competition, the Dutch regulation was deemed necessary to allow the proper practice of the legal profession.

Failure to Implement Lawyers' Establishment Directive Prompts European Commission to Act Against Five Member States
December 2001 saw the European Commission (EC) reinstitute infringement proceedings against Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Luxembourg after they were adjudged to have failed to implement the lawyers' establishment Directive. This Directive effectively facilitates the free movement of lawyers throughout the European Union (EU) and was to have been implemented in March 2000. However, since a number of the 15 Member States had failed to enact the necessary legislation, and Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were judged to be taking necessary steps, no action was taken. However, by December the decision was made by the EC to proceed with action against the five states.

European Court of Justice Rules on Effect of Professional Associations on Competition
In a preliminary ruling on November 29, 2002 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the way Article 81 of the European Union (EU) Treaty (relating to anti-competitive behavior) affects those working in a professional activity. The ruling stemmed from an earlier ruling in an Italian court relating to architects in which the claimant had applied for an order against the respondent for payment of professional fees. The professional body concerned had endorsed the invoice but the respondent then petitioned to have the order set aside on the basis that it was void as it contravened Article 81 and therefore constituted anti-competitive behavior.

In its ruling, the Court dismissed the claim that the setting of minimum tariffs was in contravention of Article 81, stating that each practitioner is able to set a relevant fee and this cannot be deemed to lead to anti-competitive agreements. The earlier case in the Italian court had also questioned whether Article 81 should prevent national legislation that permits members of a profession to set, at their own discretion, the charges for the services that they perform. Likewise, the ECJ felt that this did not constitute anti-competitive behavior.

This case is one of a number being heard by the ECJ that relate to Article 81 and its effect on the professions. In addition to the NOVA case (the Dutch Bar Association - see above), a further Italian case regarding whether or not fixed fees are acceptable will also be heard and a ruling issued.