Facts
The appellant, born in 1973, obtained a law degree in 1998 from the University of Geneva. He completed a bar traineeship in Geneva from September 2002 to August 2004 without obtaining the certificate, then completed a traineeship in the canton of Vaud from September 2011 to June 2012, then from 28 April 2014 to 12 September 2016.
He registered for the bar examinations of session IV/2016, then withdrew his registration on 4 October 2016 on the ground that preparation time was judged too short. He did not register for session I/2017, was considered to have waived session IV/2017 for lack of documents, and requested registration for session I/2018, subject to a certificate from the Traineeship Chamber regarding the training courses, which he obtained (examination passed with a mark of 5.25; 22 credits validated on 29 March 2018).
On 3 April 2018, he registered for session II/2018, then withdrew his registration on 6 June 2018, the day before the examinations, invoking criminal proceedings in Bern. The Examination Committee took note of the withdrawal on 22 June 2018, with half of the fee being due.
On 31 October 2018, he requested registration for session I/2019 and restitution of the two-year period from the end of the traineeship, invoking the death of his sister in October 2016, sleep apnoea diagnosed in October 2018 and the criminal proceedings.
By decision of 30 November 2018 (the date of 2019 mentioned in the judgment is erroneous), the Administrative Court of the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal refused registration, the two-year period of art. 32 para. 3 LPAv having expired and the circumstances not constituting a case of force majeure. By judgment of 11 March 2019, the Cantonal Tribunal, Administrative and Public Law Division, dismissed the appeal, holding that the impossibility of extending the period did not violate economic freedom and that the conditions for restitution were not met.
The appellant lodges a public law appeal, subsidiarily a subsidiary constitutional appeal, requesting authorisation to sit the examinations, subsidiarily to sit them by 22 December 2019, more subsidiarily the referral back to the previous authority.
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the subsidiary constitutional appeal is inadmissible, the public law appeal being available. It adopts the facts of the contested judgment, the appellant not having shown that their correction would affect the outcome of the case.
Considerations
The complaint of violation of economic freedom (art. 27 Cst.) is dismissed. The Federal Supreme Court leaves open whether the two-year period of art. 32 para. 3 LPAv constitutes an infringement of that freedom. It holds that this period pursues a public interest (art. 36 para. 2 Cst.), being a police measure aimed at ensuring that lawyers remain in contact with judicial life and possess the qualifications necessary to represent litigants.
From the perspective of proportionality (art. 36 para. 3 Cst.), the two-year period in principle leaves time to prepare, preparation in the canton of Vaud being in practice one or two months. The cantons retain a wide margin of discretion in matters of training (art. 3 para. 1 FMLA), the comparison with Geneva not establishing that the Vaud period is disproportionate. The principle of equality is not violated, the arrangements for traineeships and examinations varying considerably from one canton to another.
The complaint of violation of cantonal law based on economic freedom is inadmissible, for lack of reasoning meeting the heightened requirements (art. 106 para. 2 FSCA) as to arbitrariness (art. 9 Cst.). The complaint of good faith (art. 5 para. 3 and 9 Cst.) is dismissed: the Vaud law is…