6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. 7.  He is a doctor with substantial experience, having been a general practitioner for more than eighteen years. In this capacity, he currently has his own private practice, with two employees. He also teaches at the Bucharest Faculty of Medicine and has authored several works in the field of general medicine. 8.  In 2006 the applicant graduated from law school; one year later, he registered to become a lawyer, after having passed the annual entrance examination organised by the Bucharest Bar. On 18 December 2007 the Bucharest Bar issued a decision validating the results of the examination and declaring that the applicant was admitted to the Bar. 9.  The Bucharest Bar further decided on 14 February 2008 to register the applicant as a trainee lawyer (avocat stagiar) as of 15 February 2008. A two-year traineeship period being an obligatory condition for obtaining a licence to practise as a lawyer, the applicant signed a traineeship agreement (contract de colaborare) with the B.P. private law firm. On 15 February 2008 the Bar approved the applicant’s traineeship within the firm. 10.  On 13 March 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the Dean of the Bucharest Bar to be allowed to pursue his two-year traineeship (stagiu) in compliance with section 17 of Law no. 51/1995 regulating the legal profession, notwithstanding the fact that he simultaneously had his own private medical practice. He considered that “the medical profession was not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession or the lawyers’ rules of conduct within the meaning of Rule 30 of the Rules governing the Legal Profession”.
On 20 March 2008, applying section 14 (b) and section 53 (2) (e) of Law no. 51/1995, the Bucharest Bar rejected the applicant’s request. In its decision the Bar held:
“the applicant’s request to practise simultaneously as a lawyer and as a doctor is dismissed, and the applicant must consequently opt for one of the two professions.” 11.  On 21 April 2008 the applicant contested that decision before the National Bar Association. He challenged the reason for the dismissal of his request, which, citing section 14 (b), referred to ineligibility to practise as a lawyer for anyone who already pursued a “profession that infringes the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or is contrary to good morals”. He contended that his professional CV, including a Ph.D. in medicine, a career of teaching at the university and the authorship of several books on medicine, could on no account infringe the dignity of the legal profession. At the same time, he pointed to the fact that he was neither an employee nor a trader, as proscribed by the legislation regulating the activities of lawyers.
On 18 June 2008 the National Bar Association upheld the Bucharest Bar’s decision, this time on the basis of section 15 of Law no. 51/1995, which enumerated “exhaustively” the professions that were compatible with the profession of lawyer (see “Relevant domestic law” below). As the practice of medicine was not specified among those professions, the applicant’s request was dismissed. 12.  That decision was contested before the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
In its reply to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent argued, firstly, that the combined interpretation of sections 14 and 15 of the Law led to the conclusion that no other profession could be practised in parallel with that of a lawyer, except for those restrictively enumerated under section 15; furthermore, the practice of two liberal professions at the same time was not permitted by the law, nor was it desirable, in view of the fact that each liberal profession required 100% dedication on the part of the person practising it. 13.  On 20 January 2009 the court allowed the applicant’s claims, holding that section 14 (b) was not applicable, in so far as “the profession of doctor does not impinge on the independence of the profession of lawyer”. The court further held that any restriction on practising a profession must be expressly and unequivocally prescribed by law, which was not the case in this instance. Moreover, the Romanian Constitution protected the right to work, which could not be subject to any limitations, with a few exceptions expressly enumerated in section 53, such as national security reasons, protection of public order, health and public morals or protection of individual rights and freedoms, none of which was applicable in the applicant’s case.
Furthermore, the prohibition on practising as a lawyer while also practising as a doctor was not included in the text of section 14 (b) of Law no. 51/1995, which referred only to professions that infringed the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or were contra bonos mores.
The court further held that section 15 of the Law did not contain an exhaustive list of the professions compatible with the profession of lawyer, in spite of the National Bar Association’s interpretation of that provision to the effect that if the medical profession was not included in the text among the compatible professions, this meant, by converse implication, that it was not compatible with the profession of lawyer. The incompatible professions were enumerated exhaustively in section 14, and the profession of doctor was not among them.
The assertion that practising a liberal profession required total dedication and implicitly a lot of time on the part of the practitioner could not be taken into consideration for the assessment of the lawfulness of the decisions taken by the local and national Bars; not having enough time to devote to clients’ cases had nothing to do with the independence of the legal profession. The court thus confirmed the applicant’s right to practise both professions simultaneously, annulling the Bars’ decisions. 14.  The National Bar Association appealed against that judgment to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. It argued that while section 14 of the Law listed the professions that were incompatible with the profession of lawyer in a generic manner, giving examples, section 15 regulated, strictly and restrictively, the exceptions that were allowed, among which the profession of doctor was not mentioned. At the same time, the simultaneous practice of both professions infringed the principle of the independence of lawyers. In wanting to practise both professions, the applicant demonstrated only his extreme mercantilism, as he “minimised the importance of these professions, treating them as mere sources of income”. 15.  On 24 June 2009 the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant’s request, holding that the combined interpretation of sections 14 and 15 led to the conclusion that the list of compatible situations was exhaustive and thus section 15 referred to the only professions that by law were compatible with that of a lawyer; the High Court pointed out that even if the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules governing the Legal Profession, relied on by the applicant in his defence, also enumerated other situations of incompatibility and compatibility, they were of inferior rank to a law and therefore they could not contradict those of the law itself.