Literatuur European law
Week 1
Chapter 14: Free movement of legal persons and the provision of services minus p. 423-
426 en §3.4
TFEU VWEU (Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie)
Art. 49 TFEU the right of establishment vrijheid van vestiging
In art. 49 wordt de vrijheid van vestiging van natuurlijke personen geregeld. Onder
vestiging wordt het aanbieden van diensten verstaan op een permanente en
continue basis. Daarnaast moet er sprake zijn van een economische activiteit en een
zekere vergoeding
Art. 54 TFEU vrijheid van vestiging van rechtspersonen
Art. 55 TFEU discriminatieverbod
It requires economic activity together with a degree of performance by the company in the host
State
Art. 56 TFEU free movement of services
Art. 57 TFEU definition of services
For articles 56 and 57 TFEU three conditions must be satisfied:
1. There must be a service
2. The service must normally be provided for remuneration
3. The service must be temporary
Artcicles 56 and 57 TFEU apply in three situations:
1. The freedom to (travel to) provide services
2. The freedom to travel to receive services confirmed in case law
3. The situation where neither provider nor recipient travels (electronic provision of services)
Articles 49 and 56 TFEU apply only to movements of het self-employed and companies within the
EU/EEA
Article 63 TFEU applies to movements of capital within the EU/EEA and between the EU/EEA and
third countries
“Een bedrijf uit een staat die geen lidstaat is van de EU kan geen beroep doen op art. 56 TFEU”
Subjects of Articles 49 en 56 TFEU
Articles 49 en 56 TFEu have vertical direct effect they apply to the Member States and also to
regulatory bodies (regelgevende instanties)
A breach
Once a claimant company has established that the national rule it wishes to challenge falls in the
scope of Article 49 or 56 TFEU, it must then show the the rule breaches that Treaty provision.
Discrimination
Direct discrminiation: concerns less favouraable treatment on the grounds of origing
Indirect discrimination: concerns a rule, such as a residence requirement of the corporate
headquarters, which, on its face, applies to all companies but in fact disadvantages those with only
,an branch in the host State ‘’geen onderscheid op basis van bepaalde kenmerken zoals ras of
geslacht, toepassing van een bepaalde eis of regel dit wel tot resultaat heeft. Lijkt van toepassing op
alle bedrijven in gaststaat maar in feite heeft het alleen invloed op bedrijven die zich vertakken in de
gaststaat’’
Alpine Investments:
Rules which are non-discriminatory but nevertheless hinder market acces
argued that since the rule was non-discriminatory, EU law would not apply following the principles
laid down in Keck.
Court: disagreed the Dutch rule breached article 56 TFEU since although non-discriminatory, it
‘directly affects access to the markets in services in the other Member States and is thus capable of
hindering intra-Union trade in services’
THIS DECESION BROUGT A BROADER SHIFT TOWARDS THE MARKET ACCES/RESTRICTIONS
APPROACH
Gebhard:
Made clear that the change in Alpine Investments was significant and applied across all the
freedoms.
Derogations and justifications
General derogations
o Articles 52(1) and 62 TFEU allow member Stats to derogate (‘afwijken’) from the
rules on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services on the
grounds of public policy, public securtity and public health
Exercise of official authority
o Art. 51(1) TFEU on establishment; article 62 TFEU extends this to services
The special case of gambling
The rules imposing limitations on gambling are restrictions on free movement.
Having brought the rules within the purview of Article 49 or 56 TFEU, the Court considers whether
they can be justified on the grounds of various public interests
Directive 2006/123
Built round 4 pillars
1. Easing freedom of establishment and the freedom of rpovision of services in the EU
2. Administrative simplification
3. Strengthening rights of recipients of services as users
4. Promoting the quality of services
Chapter 16: Exceptions to the free movement rules
To resolve disputes connected to EU free movement rights, the Court of Justice normaly addresses
three distinct questions:
1. Does the channenged measure constitute a restriction of the free movement rights
guaranteed by the Treaty?
2. If it does, can the measure be justified?
3. If it can, is the measure proportionate?
Treaty-based derogation grounds:
The protection of public health is the derogation raised most frequently in the case law on free
movement restrictions, especially for restrictions on the free movement of goods.
, The justification framework: public interest requirement
Restriction on free movement right scan be
a. Directly discriminatory on the grounds of nationality
b. Indirectly discriminatory
c. Non-discriminatory
Directly discriminatory restrictions cannot be justified for any reasons other than the derogation
grounds specified extressly in the Treaty.
Economic justifications it is a standard premise of free movement law that ‘aims of a purely
economic nature cannot constitute an overriding reason in the general interest justifying a restriction
of a fundamental freedom guaranteed bij the Treaty’
‘Het is een standaard uitgangspunt van het recht op vrij verkeer dat doelstellingen van louter
economische aard geen dwingende reden van algemeen belang kunnen vormen die een beperking
van een door het Verdrag gewaarborgde fundamentele vrijheid rechtvaardigt.
Burden of proof
The burden of proof falls on the Member State seeking to establish that defence. It is not sufficient
(‘niet voldoende’) for States merely to assert (‘betwisten’) the relevance of a public interest objective
to defend a contested national measure. Instead, States must present evidence to support and
demonstrate the veracity (‘juistheid’) of their claims.
+ The evidence must by sufficiently precise
Fundamental rights
The protection of fundamental rights by a Member State can be a legitimate basis on which to
restrict (‘beperken’) the free movement rights guaranteed by the Treaty.
Proportionality
Even if the Court of Justicie accepts that a national measure may legitimately restrict free movement
rights in principle, the proportionality test then becomes critical since: ‘a restriction on the
fundamental freedomw enshrined in the Treaty may be justified only if the relvant measure is
appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective in question and does not go beyond what is
necessary to attain that objective
Appropiateness: if the means which they employ are suitable for the purpose of attaining
the desired objectives
Necessity: whether alternative measures that can achieve the stated public interest objective
but have less restrictive effects on EU trade
Week 1
Chapter 14: Free movement of legal persons and the provision of services minus p. 423-
426 en §3.4
TFEU VWEU (Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie)
Art. 49 TFEU the right of establishment vrijheid van vestiging
In art. 49 wordt de vrijheid van vestiging van natuurlijke personen geregeld. Onder
vestiging wordt het aanbieden van diensten verstaan op een permanente en
continue basis. Daarnaast moet er sprake zijn van een economische activiteit en een
zekere vergoeding
Art. 54 TFEU vrijheid van vestiging van rechtspersonen
Art. 55 TFEU discriminatieverbod
It requires economic activity together with a degree of performance by the company in the host
State
Art. 56 TFEU free movement of services
Art. 57 TFEU definition of services
For articles 56 and 57 TFEU three conditions must be satisfied:
1. There must be a service
2. The service must normally be provided for remuneration
3. The service must be temporary
Artcicles 56 and 57 TFEU apply in three situations:
1. The freedom to (travel to) provide services
2. The freedom to travel to receive services confirmed in case law
3. The situation where neither provider nor recipient travels (electronic provision of services)
Articles 49 and 56 TFEU apply only to movements of het self-employed and companies within the
EU/EEA
Article 63 TFEU applies to movements of capital within the EU/EEA and between the EU/EEA and
third countries
“Een bedrijf uit een staat die geen lidstaat is van de EU kan geen beroep doen op art. 56 TFEU”
Subjects of Articles 49 en 56 TFEU
Articles 49 en 56 TFEu have vertical direct effect they apply to the Member States and also to
regulatory bodies (regelgevende instanties)
A breach
Once a claimant company has established that the national rule it wishes to challenge falls in the
scope of Article 49 or 56 TFEU, it must then show the the rule breaches that Treaty provision.
Discrimination
Direct discrminiation: concerns less favouraable treatment on the grounds of origing
Indirect discrimination: concerns a rule, such as a residence requirement of the corporate
headquarters, which, on its face, applies to all companies but in fact disadvantages those with only
,an branch in the host State ‘’geen onderscheid op basis van bepaalde kenmerken zoals ras of
geslacht, toepassing van een bepaalde eis of regel dit wel tot resultaat heeft. Lijkt van toepassing op
alle bedrijven in gaststaat maar in feite heeft het alleen invloed op bedrijven die zich vertakken in de
gaststaat’’
Alpine Investments:
Rules which are non-discriminatory but nevertheless hinder market acces
argued that since the rule was non-discriminatory, EU law would not apply following the principles
laid down in Keck.
Court: disagreed the Dutch rule breached article 56 TFEU since although non-discriminatory, it
‘directly affects access to the markets in services in the other Member States and is thus capable of
hindering intra-Union trade in services’
THIS DECESION BROUGT A BROADER SHIFT TOWARDS THE MARKET ACCES/RESTRICTIONS
APPROACH
Gebhard:
Made clear that the change in Alpine Investments was significant and applied across all the
freedoms.
Derogations and justifications
General derogations
o Articles 52(1) and 62 TFEU allow member Stats to derogate (‘afwijken’) from the
rules on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services on the
grounds of public policy, public securtity and public health
Exercise of official authority
o Art. 51(1) TFEU on establishment; article 62 TFEU extends this to services
The special case of gambling
The rules imposing limitations on gambling are restrictions on free movement.
Having brought the rules within the purview of Article 49 or 56 TFEU, the Court considers whether
they can be justified on the grounds of various public interests
Directive 2006/123
Built round 4 pillars
1. Easing freedom of establishment and the freedom of rpovision of services in the EU
2. Administrative simplification
3. Strengthening rights of recipients of services as users
4. Promoting the quality of services
Chapter 16: Exceptions to the free movement rules
To resolve disputes connected to EU free movement rights, the Court of Justice normaly addresses
three distinct questions:
1. Does the channenged measure constitute a restriction of the free movement rights
guaranteed by the Treaty?
2. If it does, can the measure be justified?
3. If it can, is the measure proportionate?
Treaty-based derogation grounds:
The protection of public health is the derogation raised most frequently in the case law on free
movement restrictions, especially for restrictions on the free movement of goods.
, The justification framework: public interest requirement
Restriction on free movement right scan be
a. Directly discriminatory on the grounds of nationality
b. Indirectly discriminatory
c. Non-discriminatory
Directly discriminatory restrictions cannot be justified for any reasons other than the derogation
grounds specified extressly in the Treaty.
Economic justifications it is a standard premise of free movement law that ‘aims of a purely
economic nature cannot constitute an overriding reason in the general interest justifying a restriction
of a fundamental freedom guaranteed bij the Treaty’
‘Het is een standaard uitgangspunt van het recht op vrij verkeer dat doelstellingen van louter
economische aard geen dwingende reden van algemeen belang kunnen vormen die een beperking
van een door het Verdrag gewaarborgde fundamentele vrijheid rechtvaardigt.
Burden of proof
The burden of proof falls on the Member State seeking to establish that defence. It is not sufficient
(‘niet voldoende’) for States merely to assert (‘betwisten’) the relevance of a public interest objective
to defend a contested national measure. Instead, States must present evidence to support and
demonstrate the veracity (‘juistheid’) of their claims.
+ The evidence must by sufficiently precise
Fundamental rights
The protection of fundamental rights by a Member State can be a legitimate basis on which to
restrict (‘beperken’) the free movement rights guaranteed by the Treaty.
Proportionality
Even if the Court of Justicie accepts that a national measure may legitimately restrict free movement
rights in principle, the proportionality test then becomes critical since: ‘a restriction on the
fundamental freedomw enshrined in the Treaty may be justified only if the relvant measure is
appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective in question and does not go beyond what is
necessary to attain that objective
Appropiateness: if the means which they employ are suitable for the purpose of attaining
the desired objectives
Necessity: whether alternative measures that can achieve the stated public interest objective
but have less restrictive effects on EU trade
