Marc Gaston Bouchoucha (Case C-61/89) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1st Chamber) ECJ (1st Chamber)

Transcription

1 Marc Gaston Bouchoucha (Case C-61/89) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1st Chamber) ECJ (1st Chamber) (Presiding, Slynn P.C.; Joliet and RodrÍguez Iglesias JJ.) M. Marco Darmon, Advocate General. 3 October 1990 Reference from France by the Cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Aix-en-Provence, under Article 177 EEC. Provision considered: EEC 52 Establishment. Medicine. Osteopathy. The Community directives (75/362 and 75/363) on the medical profession relate only to the profession of 'doctor' (medecin) and not to such allied professions as osteopaths. Nor are there any other Community provisions governing the exercise of such professions as osteopaths. [8] Establishment. Reverse discrimination. Where the national of a member-state obtains a professional qualification in another member-state but is prevented from practising in their home State the situation is not purely domestic and the applicability of EEC rules on freedom of establishment must be considered. [11] Nino (C-54/88, C-91/88 & C-14/89): [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 83, distinguished. Establishment. Medicine. Osteopathy. In so far as there is no Community definition of medical acts the definition of acts restricted to the medical profession (doctors) is, in principle, a matter for the member-states. So, in the absence of Community legislation on the professional

2 practice of osteopathy, each member-state is free to regulate the exercise of that activity *1034 within its territory, so long as it does not discriminate between its own nationals and those of other member-states. [12] Establishment. Reverse discrimination. Article 52 EEC cannot be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the benefit of Community law a given member-state's own nationals when the latter, because they have lawfully resided in another member-state and have there acquired a vocational qualification which is recognised by Community law, are in their home country in the same situation as any other person enjoying the rights and liberties guaranteed by the EEC Treaty. But a diploma which does not enjoy mutual recognition within the Community (in casu, in osteopathy) does not confer a professional qualification which is recognised by Community law. [13]-[14] Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (115/78): [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 747, explained. The Court interpreted Article 52 EEC in the context of a French national prosecuted in France for practising in France as an osteopath without being qualified as a doctor although he did possess the diploma of the European School of Osteopathy in England, to the effect that Community law did not regulate osteopathy as part of its coverage of medicine or independently, that that being so it was open to member-states to determine which activities should be included in the monopoly rights attached to the practice of medicine, and therefore that the French restrictions were compatible with Article 52. Representation Messrs. Bureau and Deniniolle, of the Paris Bar, for the defendant. Marie-Monique Picard, of the Lyon Bar, for the claimants. Edwige Belliard, Assistant Director for Economic Law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Sylvie Grassi, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, for the French Government as amicus curiae. Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, for the Italian Government as amicus curiae. E. Lasnet, of the Commission's Legal Service, for the E.C. Commission as amicus curiae. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: 1. Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (115/78), 7 February 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:115/78 2. Nino (54 & 91/88 & 14/89), 3 October 1990: [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 83. Gaz:54/88 The following further cases were referred to by the Advocate General: 3. Re Biological Laboratories: E.C. Commission v. Belgium (221/85), 12 February 1987: [1987] E.C.R. 719, [1988] 1 C.M.L.R Gaz:221/85 *1035

3 4. Regina v. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers (266 & 267/87), 18 May 1989: [1989] E.C.R. 1295, [1989] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:266/87 The following additional cases were referred to in argument 5. Reyners v. Belgium (2/74), 21 June 1974: [1974] E.C.R. 631, [1974] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:2/74 6. Ministere Public v. Auer (136/78), 7 February 1979: [1979] E.C.R. 437, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:136/78 7. Bekaert v. Procureur de la Republique, Rennes (204/87), 20 April 1988: [1988] E.C.R. 2029, [1988] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:204/87 8. Officier Van Justitie v. Van Bennekom (227/82), 30 November 1983: [1984] E.C.R. 3883, [1985] 2 C.M.L.R Gaz:227/82 TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE Facts Legislative background Section L372 of the French Code de la Santé Publique (Public Health Code) provides that (1) Any person who habitually or persistently takes part, even in the presence of a doctor, in the making of a diagnosis or the treatment of illnesses or surgical conditions... by personal action, or oral or written consultation... or carries out one of the professional acts enumerated in a list drawn up by order of the Minister for Public Health... without holding a degree, certificate or other qualification mentioned in section which is required for the practice of the profession of doctor or without being covered by the special provisions of sections L356, L357, L357-1 and L360, is engaged in the unlawful practice of medicine. It is undisputed that none of the special provisions contained in the abovementioned sections applies to Mr. Bouchoucha. The 'professional acts enumerated in a list' were defined by an Order of the Minister for Public Health of 6 January 1962, [FN1] section 2 of which provides inter alia as follows: FN1 [1962] Journal Officiel de la République Française The following medical treatments may be administered only by doctors of medicine, pursuant to section L372(IX) of the Public Health Code: (1) Forced mobilisation of the joints, reduction of bone displacement, vertebral manipulation and, in general, all treatments described as ' osteopathy'...

4 *1036 Relevant Community legislation On 16 June 1975, the Council adopted two directives on the basis of Article 57 EEC: Directive 75/362, [FN2] concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine and Directive 75/363. [FN3] Concerning the co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors. It is undisputed that neither of those directives expressly covers osteopaths. FN2 [1975] O.J. L167/1. FN3 [1975] O.J. L167/14. The dispute in the main proceedings By a summons served at the request of the Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) on 24 November 1987, proceedings were commenced against Marc Bouchoucha before the Tribunal Correctionnel (Criminal Court), Nice, on a charge of having illegally practised medicine in Nice since 1981 by practising as an osteopath although not qualified as a doctor, in breach of section L372 of the Public Health Code and section 2 of the Order of 6 January By judgment of 29 April 1988, the Tribunal Correctionel found Mr. Bouchoucha guilty of the offence and fined him 5,000 FF. However, payment of the fine was suspended and it was directed that no mention of the conviction should be entered in extract B2 of his 'casier judiciaire' (personal record of any criminal convictions). The court allowed the Syndicat National des Médecins Ostéothérapeutes Français ('SNMOF'), the Syndicat National des Médecins Spécialisés en Rééducation et Réadaptation Fonctionelle ('SNMSRRF') and the Conseil Départemental de l'ordre des Médecins des Alpes-Maritimes to join the proceedings as civil parties claiming damages and ordered Mr. Bouchucha to pay each of them one franc by way of token damages. The first two civil parties indicated above and the Ministère Public appealed against that decision. In those circumstances, the Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence, considering that the proceedings against Mr. Bouchoucha were directly dependent upon the proper construction of certain provisions of the Treaty, stayed the proceedings on 23 January 1989 and referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: Is the prohibition on the practice of osteopathy in France by a French national holding a State diploma as masseur-kinesitherapist and a diploma in osteopathy issued on 1 October 1979 by the European School of Osteopathy, Maidstone (Great Britain), on the ground that he does not hold the qualification of Doctor of Medicine laid down as a requirement for that purpose by the Ministerial Order of 6 January 1962 compatible with the Treaty of Rome, in particular Article 52 et seq. on freedom of establishment? *1037 Opinion of the Advocate General (Mr. Marco Darmon)

5 The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel (Appeal Court), Aix-en-Provence, by judgment of 23 January 1989 relates to the criminal proceedings commenced before the French courts against a French national, Marc Bouchoucha, on the basis of the national provisions which penalise the unlawful practice of medicine, on the ground that he has practised osteopathy in Nice since 1981 although not qualified as a doctor of medicine. Mr. Bouchoucha has both a State diploma as a masseur-kinesitherapist issued in France and a diploma in osteopathy issued on 1 October 1979 by the European School of Osteopathy, Maidstone, Great Britain. In so far as it is by virtue of a diploma awarded in another member-state that he practised osteopathy professionally in France, Mr. Bouchoucha considered that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on freedom of establishment precluded his being prohibited from practising osteopathy in France. That defence submission was what prompted the national court to seek a preliminary ruling. Before going any further, I should point out that the situation on which the Court is now called on to give a ruling cannot, I think, be classified as ' purely internal' in the sense which I have attributed to that expression in my Opinion delivered today in the cases of Nino, Prandina and Goti, and Pierini. [FN4] The fact that the practice of osteopathy was carried on by virtue of a diploma issued in another member-state may under certain conditions, according to previous decisions of this Court, in particular its judgment in Knoors, [FN5] constitute a factor establishing a connection with Community law. I shall not therefore propose, as I have done in those cases, that the Court rule that Community law does not apply to a situation such as that of Mr. Bouchoucha because of its 'purely internal' nature--that is not the case here. FN4 Joined Cases 54 & 91/88 & 14/89: [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 83. FN5 Case 115/78, [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R Does that mean that Community law, and more particularly the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom of establishment, entitles a person in circumstances such as those of Mr. Bouchoucha to practise osteopathy professionally and therefore precludes the application of national legislation which prohibits him from practising in that capacity? I do not think so. It seems to me that the previous decisions of this Court, in particular the judgment in Case 221/85, [FN6] clearly support a negative answer. FN6 Case 221/85, E.C. Commission v. Belgium, [1987] E.C.R. 719, [1988] 1 C.M.L.R Let us first consider the essential features of the legal context of Mr. Bouchoucha's situation. There are no Community rules on the practice of osteopathy. Under French legislation, its practice is regulated, so that it may be practised only by doctors of medicine, as is apparent from section L371 of the

6 Code de la Santé Publique and from *1038 section 2 of a Ministerial Order of 6 January In France, therefore, one cannot be an osteopath without being a doctor. In Case 221/85, E.C. Commission v. Belgium, cited earlier, the Court examined, in the light of the requirements of freedom of establishment, a national legal provision which displayed marked similarities with the one just described. The issue was whether, by adopting a royal decree which precluded reimbursement by the social security authorities for clinical biology services carried out by laboratories operated by a legal person governed by private law not all of whose members, partners or directors were natural persons authorised to carry out medical analyses, that is to say doctors or pharmacists, Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 52 EEC. In giving judgment, the Court stated first that freedom of establishment includes the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons under the conditions laid down by the legislation of the country of establishment for its own nationals and it was clear from Article 52 and its context that provided that such equality of treatment is respected, each member-state is, in the absence of Community rules in this area, free to lay down rules for its own territory governing the activities of laboratories providing clinical biology services. [FN7] FN7 Case 221/85, Para. [9]. The Court also pointed out that Article 52 was intended to ensure that all nationals of member-states who establish themselves in another member-state... for the purpose of pursuing activities there as selfemployed persons receive the same treatment as nationals of that State and it prohibits, as a restriction on freedom of establishment, any discrimination on grounds of nationality [FN8] FN8 Para. [10]. The Court then stated that the Belgian Act did not prevent doctors or pharmacists who are nationals of other member-states from establishing themselves in Belgium and operating there a laboratory to carry out clinical analyses qualifying for reimbursement under the social security system; [FN9] FN9 Para. [11]. it thus held that the legislation applies without distinction to Belgian nationals and those of other member- States, and its provisions and objectives do not permit the conclusion that it was adopted for discriminatory purposes or that it produces discriminatory effects, and concluded that Belgium had not failed to fulfil its obligations.

7 At first sight it seems to me that, in the same way, in the absence of Community rules concerning the practice of osteopathy each member-state is free to regulate the matter within its own territory and to *1039 decide that it should be restricted to doctors, provided of course that Community nationals are treated in the same way as nationals of the host State as regards access to that activity. Such treatment is ensured for the practice of osteopathy in France by the combined effect of sections L356 and L356-2 of the Public Health Code. By virtue of those sections which were adopted in compliance with Directives 75/362 [FN10] and 75/363 [FN11] of 16 June 1975, the French law enables any Community national qualified as a doctor in another member-state to establish himself in France and, if he wishes, to practise osteopathy there. I consider therefore that that law fulfils the requirements of the principle laid down in Article 52 with respect to an activity not regulated at Community level. FN10 Council Directive 75/362 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services: [1975] O.J. L167/1. FN11 Directive 75/63 concerning the co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors: [1975] O.J. L167/14. There is nothing in Article 57(3) EEC which relates specifically to the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, to change that view in any way. As far as access to those professions is concerned, it provides that 'the progressive abolition of restrictions shall be dependent upon co-ordination of the conditions for their exercise in the various member-states.' In the absence of any coordination regarding the practice of osteopathy, Article 57(3) prompts the conclusion that the restrictions resulting from the legislation of a member-state which restricts the professional practice of osteopathy to doctors and consequently prohibits its practice by people who, although not doctors, are qualified to practise in other member-states, must be accepted. Provided that equal treatment is guaranteed for access to the profession of doctor--which, as we have seen, is the case--and that the prohibition on the practice of osteopathy applies without distinction to non-doctors from the country in question and those from other member-states, there is no infringement of the requirements of freedom of establishment. On an intellectual level, of course, the possibility cannot be ruled out that a member-state may commit an abuse by artificially linking the practice of medicine with an activity alien to it. But it is clear that in an area such as the protection of human health a very circumspect approach must be taken in determining what does and what does not fall to be classified as a medical activity. In the absence of Community co-ordination, it is in my view a matter for the member-states alone to say which of the activities that come within the medical sphere in the broad sense are to be regarded as medical activities strictu

8 sensu and which may be practised separately from the activity of a doctor. In that *1040 respect, the Court's statement in Case 266/877 [FN12] with respect to the free movement of goods seems to me to apply equally here. In the absence of Community rules, it is for the member-states to decide on the degree to which they wish to protect human health and life and how that degree of protection is to be achieved. [FN13] FN12 Joined Cases /87, Regina v. Royal Pharmaceutical Society: [1989] E.C.R. 1295, [1989] 2 C.M.L.R FN13 Para. [21]. A member-state's decision that the practice of osteopathy falls within the scope of the practice of medicine seems to me to be a matter of deciding on the degree to which it wishes to protect health and does not therefore go beyond its powers under Community law. The question of possible abuse would arise only in the case of the manifestly artificial inclusion within the medical sphere of an activity which is incontestably alien to it. The circumstances of this case concern an activity, osteopathy, which cannot be regarded as alien to the field of medicine and it therefore seems to me that the Court cannot even contemplate the possibility of any abuse. I thus consider that the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment do not, in the absence of Community rules on the professional practice of osteopathy, prevent a member-state from restricting the pursuit of that activity to doctors, provided that all Community nationals are treated in the same way as nationals of that State as regards access to the practice of medicine and that the prohibition whereby non-doctors may not practise osteopathy applies without distinction to the nationals of that State and those of the other member-states. I therefore suggest that the Court rule as follows: The EEC Treaty, and in particular the provisions thereof on freedom of establishment, does not, in the absence of Communty rules on the practice of osteopathy, preclude a member-state from restricting the pursuit of that activity exclusively to doctors, provided that all Community nationals are treated in the same way as nationals of that State as regards access to the practice of medicine and that the prohibition whereby non-doctors may not practise osteopathy applies without distinction to the nationals of that State and those of the other member-states. JUDGMENT [1] By judgment of 23 January 1989, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 March 1989, the Cour d'appel (Appeal Court), Aix-en-Provence, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on *1041 the interpretation of Article 52 et seq. EEC with a view to assessing the compatibility with Community law of a French statute prohibiting the unlawful exercise of the profession of doctor. [2] The question was raised in criminal proceedings brought against Marc Gaston

9 Bouchoucha. Mr. Bouchoucha, a French national, holds a French State diploma as a masseur-kinesitherapist and a diploma in osteopathy issued on 1 October 1979 by the European School of Osteopathy, Maidstone, Great Britain. He also holds the diploma of 'Doctor of Naturopathy' from the London College of Applied Science. However, he holds no diploma, certificate or other qualification entitling him, pursuant to section L356-2 of the Code de la Santé Publique (French Public Health Code), to exercise the profession of doctor. [3] On the basis of a summons issued on 24 November 1987 at the request of the Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor's Office), proceedings were commenced against Mr. Bouchoucha before the Tribunal Correctionnel (Criminal Court), Nice, on a charge of having illegally practised medicine in Nice since April 1981 by practising as an osteopath although not qualified as a doctor. By virtue of an Order of the Minister of Health of 6 January 1962 any 'forced mobilisation of the joints, reduction of bone displacement, vertebral manipulation and, in general, all treatments described as "osteopathy"' are regarded as professional acts for whose performance qualification as a doctor is required. [4] By judgment of 29 April 1988, the Tribunal Correctionnel found Mr. Bouchoucha guilty of the offence of unlawful practice of medicine, fined him-- but suspended the fine--and ordered him to pay token damages of one franc to each of the three civil parties claiming damages, the Syndicat National des Médecins Ostéothérapeutes Français ('SNMOF'), the Syndicat National des Médecins Spécialisés en Rééducation et Réadaptation Fonctionelle ('SNMSRRF') and the Conseil Départemental de l'ordre des Médecins des Alpes-Maritimes. Two of the civil parties, the SNMOF and the SNMSRRF, and the Ministère Public appealed against that judgment to the Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence. [5] The two civil parties and the Ministère Public sought confirmation of Mr. Bouchoucha's conviction. The civil parties also claimed payment of compensation for the harm caused to them and publication of the judgment in two local newspapers. Mr. Bouchoucha contended that his diploma in osteopathy granted by the European School of Osteopathy entitled him to pursue that activity in Great Britain and that to prohibit him from practising osteopathy in France on the ground that he was not a doctor of medicine was contrary to Article 52 et seq. EEC on freedom of establishment. [6] The Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence, therefore referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: *1042 Is the prohibition on the practice of osteopathy in France by a French national holding a State diploma as masseur-kinesitherapist and a diploma in osteopathy issued on 1 October 1979 by the European School of Osteopathy, Maidstone (Great Britain), on the ground that he does not hold the qualification of Doctor of Medicine laid down as a requirement for that purpose by the Ministerial Order of 6 January 1962 compatible with the Treaty of Rome, in particular Article 52 et seq. thereof on freedom of establishment? [7] Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the relevant national and Community legislation, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the

10 reasoning of the Court. [8] It must first be stated that both Directive 75/362 [FN14] concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363 [FN15] concerning the co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors relate only to the profession of 'doctor'. Moreover, there are no Community provisions governing the exercise of professions allied to medicine such as, in particular, osteopathy. It must also be noted that the above-mentioned directives contain no Community definition of what activities are to be regarded as those of a doctor. FN14 [1975] O.J. L167/1. FN15 [1975] O.J. L167/14. [9] Mr. Bouchoucha contends that Community Law is applicable by virtue of the fact that, notwithstanding the diploma issued to him in another member-state, he is prevented from practising the activity to which that diploma relates in the State of his nationality. He maintains first that the judgment in Case 115/78, Knoors, [FN16] is sufficient to rebut the objection that the scope of the present case is purely internal to the member-state concerned and secondly that the provisions of the French Order of 6 January 1962 classifying the treatments known as 'osteopathy' as professional acts for which qualification as a doctor is required infringe the Community principle of proportionality. FN16 [1979] E.C.R. 399, [1979] 2 C.M.L.R [10] The French Government contends, on the other hand, that in the medical sphere the implementation of the principle of freedom of establishment is based on the mutual recognition of diplomas, case by case, in accordance with the directives adopted for that purpose. However, in the absence of a precise Community definition of the 'activities of a doctor', member-states are free to restrict osteopathy and vertebral manipulation to doctors. The judgment in Knoors, supra, is relevant only where the professional training undergone by the person concerned in another member-state has been 'recognised by Community law'. *1043 [11] It must be pointed out in the first place that, by contrast with the situation in the criminal proceedings against Eleonora Nino and Others (judgment of today's date in Joined Cases C-54/88, C-91/88 and C-14/89 [FN17]), Mr. Bouchoucha, a French national practising in France, holds a professional diploma issued in another member-state. It follows that the scope of the present case is not purely national and the applicability of the EEC Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment must be considered. FN17 [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 83.

11 [12] Secondly, it must be observed that in so far as there is no Community definition of medical acts the definition of acts restricted to the medical profession is, in principle, a matter for the member-states. It follows that in the absence of Community legislation on the professional practice of osteopathy each member- State is free to regulate the exercise of that activity within its territory, without discriminating between its own nationals and those of the other member-states. [13] It is apparent from the judgment in Knoors, supra, that Article 52 EEC cannot be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the benefit of Community law a given member-state's own nationals where the latter, owing to the fact that they have lawfully resided in the territory of another member-state and have there acquired a vocational qualification which is recognised by the provisions of Community law, are, with regard to their member-state of origin, in a situation which may be regarded as equivalent to that of any other person enjoying the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty (paragraph [24]). [14] However, as has been rightly pointed out by the French Government, the SNMOF and the SNMSRRF, the diploma from the European School of Osteopathy held by Mr. Bouchoucha does not at present enjoy any mutual recognition within the Community. It cannot therefore be regarded as a professional qualification recognised by the provisions of Community law. Furthermore, according to Knoors, supra, it is not possible to disregard the legitimate interest which a member-state may have in preventing certain of its nationals, by means of facilities created under the Treaty, from attempting to evade the application of their national legislation as regards vocational training (paragraph [25]). [15] That is true in particular where the fact that a national of a member-state has obtained in another member-state a diploma whose scope and value are not recognised by any Community provision might place his member-state of origin under an obligation to allow him to exercise the activities covered by that diploma within its territory even though access to those activities is restricted there to the holders of a higher qualification which enjoys mutual recognition at Community level and there is nothing to indicate that the restriction is arbitrary. *1044 [16] It must therefore be stated in reply to the question submitted by the Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence, that in the absence of harmonisation at Community level regarding activities which fall solely within the scope of the practice of medicine, Article 52 EEC does not preclude a member-state from restricting an activity ancillary to medicine such as, in particular, osteopathy exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine. Costs [17] The costs incurred by the French and Italian Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is matter for that court.

12 Order On those grounds, THE COURT (First Chamber), in reply to the question submitted to it by the Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence, by judgment of 23 January 1989, HEREBY RULES: In the absence of harmonisation at Community level regarding activities which fall solely within the scope of the practice of medicine, Article 52 EEC does not preclude a member-state from restricting an activity ancillary to medicine such as, in particular, osteopathy exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine. (c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited [1992] 1 C.M.L.R END OF DOCUMENT