Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:40:11.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Goods, Persons, Services and Capital in the European Union: Jurisprudential Routes to Free Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Tim Connor

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This Paper considers the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in relation to the free movement provisions of European Community law in relation to goods, persons, services and capital within the European Union. It examines the bases used by the Court in its application of Community free movement provisions to national measures that may seek to hinder the exercise of such rights. From limited enquiry originally founded on considerations of non discrimination based on nationality, to one most recently focussed on the ‘restriction’ to the free movement right, the Paper examines the methods employed by the Court of Justice in its scrutiny of the national measure appearing to conflict with Treaty free movement rights.

The examination of the applicable free movement jurisprudence attempts to demonstrate the want of a thematically consistent underpinning within free movement case law. The Paper draws attention to the complexities and even the confusions that appear to be inherent within free movement jurisprudence and arguably evidenced within the Court's journey from ‘discrimination’ to ‘restriction’ as the basis of the enquiry with regard to the application of Treaty free movement rights. In its consideration of Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy, Case C-142/05 Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson v. Joakim Roos, recent jurisprudence with respect to the free movement of goods, the Paper notes that in the context of the ‘measure having equivalent effect’, the emphasis in the assessment of the national rule has shifted to an examination of the effect on market access, rather than a distinction based on the type of rule.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , 11 February 2010 , pp. 159 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

Footnotes

*

Lecturer in Law, Bradford University Law School, School of Management, University of Bradford. [email protected]

References

1 Art. 28 (ex 30) EC. Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Communities 2002, C 325,24/12/2004, p.47.Google Scholar

2 Relating to the worker, Art 39 (ex 48) EC and to rights of establishment, Art. 43 (ex 52) EC. See supra, note 1 Art 39 (ex 48), p. 51; Art 43 (ex 52) EC, p. 52.Google Scholar

3 Arts. 49 & 50 (ex 59 & 60) EC. See supra, note 1 Art 49 & 50 (ex 59 & 60) EC, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

4 Arts. 56 EC – 60 EC. See supra, note 1 Articles 56–60 (ex 73(b) – (g)), pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

5 “Within the scope of application of this Treaty…any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. Art 12 (ex 6) EC. The Treaty provisions in relation to this prohibition with respect to free movement jurisprudence have direct effect. Case 13/76, Gaetano Dona v. Mario Mantero, 1976 E.C.R. 1333, para. 20.Google Scholar

6 Case C-176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Federation royale belge des societies de basket-ball (FRBSB), 2000 E.C.R. I-2681, para. 37.Google Scholar

7 Case C-43/95, Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd, 1996 E.C.R. 1-4661, para. 16.Google Scholar

8 “The rules regarding equality of treatment,… in the Treaty… forbid not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result.” Case 152/73, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost, 1974 E.C.R. 153, para. 11.Google Scholar

9 In the context of the right of establishment, Art 52 (now 43) EC. Jean Reyners v. Belgian State Case 2/74, 1974 E.C.R. 631.Google Scholar

10 A Dutch national excluded from the profession of avocat on the ground of nationality, para 2.Google Scholar

11 Note also the restrictions on the employability of migrants on fishing vessels, in the ratio of three French to one non French national. Case 167/73, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 1974 E.C.R. 359, para. 46.Google Scholar

12 “The application of other criteria of differentiation, lead[s] to the same result” as discrimination which is direct. Case C-175/88, Klaus Biehl v. Administration des contributions du grand-duche de Luxembourg, 1990 E.C.R. I-1779, para. 13.Google Scholar

13 A greater burden in fact. In relation to the worker, for example Case 152/73, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost, 1974 E.C.R. 153, para. 11; with respect to establishment and services Case C-3/88, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1989 E.C.R. 4035, para. 8.Google Scholar

14 Case 34/79, Regina v. Maurice Donald Henn and John Frederick Ernest Darby, 1979 E.C.R. 3795, para. 22.Google Scholar

15 Case 121/85, 1986 E.C.R. 1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Art. 28 (ex 30) EC.Google Scholar

17 Case 4/75, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eGmbH v. Landwirtschaftskammer, 1975 E.C.R. 843. Other examples for example include Case 153/78, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1979 E.C. R. 2555, para. 15. concerning the prohibition by Germany of imports of meat products manufactured from meat not coming from the country of manufacture of the finished product and Case C-398/98, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, 2001 E.C.R. I-7915 where Greece required petroleum companies storing their products in Greek refineries to buy supplies from those refineries.Google Scholar

18 Case 178/84, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1987 E.C.R. 1227, para. 40.Google Scholar

19 Case 231/83, Henri Cullet and Chambre syndicale des reparateurs automobiles et detaillants de produits petroliers v. Centre Leclerc a Toulouse and Centre Leclerc a Saint-Orens-de-Gameville, 1985 E.C.R. 305, para. 34.Google Scholar

20 Case 72/83, Campus Oil Limited and others v. Minister for Industry and Energy and others, 1984 E.C.R. 2727, para. 20.Google Scholar

21 Case C-170/04, Klas Rosengren and others v. Riksåklagaren, 2007 E.C.R. I-4071, para. 36.Google Scholar

22 Note also the possibility of Art. 30 (now 28) EC embracing the indistinctly applicable measure was broached by the Commission in 1970; Art. 3 Council Directive 70/50/EEC of 22 December 1969, Official Journal L 13, 19/01/1970 p. 29 [OJ Sp. Ed. 1970 L13/29]. See also Case C-434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, para. 18.Google Scholar

23 Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoit and Gustave Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837, para. 5.Google Scholar

24 Case 120/78, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

25 Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

26 Case 249/81, 1982 E.C.R. 4005, para. 30.Google Scholar

27 Case 207/83, 1985 E.C.R. 1201, para. 23.Google Scholar

28 Other examples include Case 193/80, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1981 E.C.R. 3019, para. 12, a national measure, which determined that vinegar could only be used for products obtained from the acetic fermentation of wine, was held unlawful. The typically national product thereby favoured to the detriment of the various categories of natural vinegar produced in other Member States.Google Scholar

29 Case 307/84, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 1986 E.C.R. 1725, para. 17.Google Scholar

30 Based on the application of Art 48(2) (now 39(2)) EC. The Article specifically implements the prohibition relating to discrimination. The provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, Official Journal L 257, 19/10/1968 p. 2. [OJ Sp. Ed. 1968, No. L257/2, p. 475] implement the principle of non-discrimination contained in Art 39(2) (ex 48(2) EC with respect to the worker, “but do[es] not extend its scope”. Case C-90/96, David Petrie and Others v. Universita degli studi di Verona and Camilla Bettoni, 1997 E.C.R. I-6527, para. 25.Google Scholar

31 Case 225/85, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1987 E.C.R. 2625, para. 14.Google Scholar

32 Case C-214/94, Ingrid Boukhalfa v. Bundesrepublic Deutschland, 1996 E.C.R. I-2253, paras. 17 & 22.Google Scholar

33 Case 96/85, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 1986 E.C.R. 1475. Other examples in the context of establishment include Case 63/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1988 E.C.R. 29, para. 20 where an Italian measure permitted only host nationals to purchase socially built housing; a restriction in Case 147/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, 1988 E.C.R. 1637, para. 21 on the migrant setting up private music and dance schools and in Case C-311/97, Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v. Greece, 1999 E.C.R. I-2651, paras. 14 & 15, where higher tax rates were charged on foreign companies.Google Scholar

34 Case 79/85, D. H. M. Segers v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen 1986 E.C.R. 2375, para. 13.Google Scholar

35 Id., para. 19.Google Scholar

36 Case 39/75, Robert-Gerardus Coenen and others v. Sociaal-Economische Raad, 1975 E.C.R. 1547, para. 12. See also Case C-294/89, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-3591, para. 37, where the national law required the migrant lawyer providing services to work with a French lawyer and in C-353/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1991 E.C.R. I-4069, paras. 16–17, an obligation imposed on national broadcasting bodies established in the Netherlands to have all or some of their programmes made by a Dutch undertaking was directly discriminatory.Google Scholar

37 Case 33/88 Pilar Allue and Carmel Mary Coonan v. Universita degli studi di Venezia, 1989 E.C.R. 1591, para. 19. Other examples relate to Case C-272/92 Maria Chiara Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern, 1993 E.C.R. I-5185, para. 18, where the awarding of fixed term contracts in respect of language posts filled mainly by foreign-assistants and Case 16/78 Criminal proceedings against Michel Choquet, 1978 E.C.R. 2293, para. 8. where an insistence that the migrant worker obtain a fresh driving license, thereby duplicating one held in the home state, could have indirectly prejudiced exercise of free movement rights. The latter example represents an extension of the principle of non-discrimination through the conduit of Art 7(2) Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of Council of 15 October 1968, of 15 October 1968, Official Journal L 257,19/10/1968 p. 2. [OJ Sp. Ed. 1968, No. L257/2, pg 475].Google Scholar

38 Case C-90/96, David Petrie and Others v. Universita degli studi di Verona and Camilla Bettoni, 1997 E.C.R. I-6527, para. 55.Google Scholar

39 For example Case C-221/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame and Others, 1991 E.C.R.-3905; Case C-334/94, Commission v. France, 1996 E.C.R. I-1307. Further, in Case 154/87, Rijksinstituut voor de sociale verzekering des zelfstandigen (RSVZ) v. Heinrich Wolf et NV Microtherm Europe and others, 1988 E.C.R. 3897, para. 9., it was held that self employed migrants were to be exempted on an equal basis with host nationals from social security contributions.Google Scholar

40 Joined cases 110 & 111/78, Ministere public and Chambre syndicale des agents artistiques et impresarii de Belgique’ ASBL v. Willy van Wesemael and others, 1970 E.C.R., para. 39. Other examples include Case 205/84, Commission v. Germany, 1986 E.C.R. 3755, para. 57. in which legislation required insurance undertakings providing direct insurance services to have a permanent establishment in the state in which the service was provided. So too, in Case C-360/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1992 E.C.R. 1-3401, para. 23. Here an Italian measure was unlawful where it concerned the reservation of public works for companies having offices in the region of those works. Another example, in Case 59/82, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtshaft v. Weinverttiebs-Gmbh, 1983 E.C.R. 1217 related to the marketing of vermouth. The import contained a lower alcohol content than the minimum prescribed in the exporting Member State, para. 12.Google Scholar

41 Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Calafiori 2005 E.C.R. I-3875, para. 36.Google Scholar

42 Case C-340/89, Irène Vlassopoulou v. Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg, 1991 E.C.R. 1-2357, para. 15.Google Scholar

43 Case 292/86, Claude Gullung v. Conseil de l” ordre des avocats du barreau de Colmar et de Saverne, 1988 E.C.R. 111, para. 31.Google Scholar

44 Case 143/87, Christopher Stanton and SA belge d” assurances L'Étoile 1905 v. Institut national d” assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), 1988 E.C.R. 3877, para. 9.Google Scholar

45 For example rules concerning qualifications and licences.Google Scholar

46 Case C-237/94, John O’ Flynn v. Adjudication Officer, 1996 E.C.R. I-2617, paras. 18–19.Google Scholar

47 For a discussion of the consequence of this issue see Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms 262 Oxford University Press 2nd ed., 2007).Google Scholar

48 Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v. Republik Österreich 1999 E.C.R. I-3099, para. 23.Google Scholar

49 Case C-423/98, Alfredo Albore 2000 E.C.R. I-05965, para. 17.Google Scholar

50 C-512/03, Blanckaert v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerle, 2005 E.C.R. I-07685, para. 39.Google Scholar

51 Art. 12 (ex 6) EC. Also for example, Art. 39(2) (ex 48(2)) EC in relation to the worker.Google Scholar

52 Art. 12 EC.Google Scholar

53 Case 33/88, Pilar Allue and Carmel Mary Coonan v. Universita degli studi di Venezia, 1989 E.C.R. 1591.Google Scholar

54 Case 4/75, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eGmbH v. Landwirtschaftskammer, 1975 E.C.R. 843, para. 3.Google Scholar

55 Only Art. 39 (ex 48) EC relating to the worker specifically identifies the concept of discrimination. That Article provides “Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of Member States.”Google Scholar

56 Case 52/79, Procureur du Roi v. Marc J.V.C. Debauve and others 1980 E.C.R. 833.Google Scholar

57 Judgment delivered 18 March 1980.Google Scholar

58 “The answer must therefore be that Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty do not preclude national rules prohibiting the transmission of advertisements by cable television - as they prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements by television - if those rules are applied without distinction as regards the origin, whether national or foreign, of those advertisements, the nationality of the person providing the service, or the place where he is established” supra, note 56, para. 16.Google Scholar

59 Art. 39(2) (ex 48(2)) EC. “Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of Member States.”Google Scholar

60 Similarly, in relation to the free movement of goods, the language of Art. 28 EC is reflective of this sentiment. The Article, is expressed as the “measure having equivalent effect;” equivalent to the quantitative restriction. Note also the definition of Art 30 (now 28) EC provided by Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoit and Gustave Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837, para. 5.Google Scholar

61 Case 52/79, Procureurdu Roi v. Marc J.V.C. Debauve and others 1980 E.C.R. 833.Google Scholar

62 One possible argument standing in opposition to these sentiments would appear to be that had that approach been adopted, Member States would have been saddled with the grounds provided by the Treaty with respect to justification of the national measure. It would follow that the subsequent circumvention of those grounds in instances of indirect discrimination would have remained closed to the Court and may never have therefore occurred.Google Scholar

63 Art. 3(1)(c) EC.Google Scholar

64 Case 118/75, Lynne Watson and Alessandro Belmann 1976 E.C.R. 1185, para. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Case 16/78, Criminal Proceedings against Michel Choquet 1978 E.C.R. 2293.Google Scholar

66 Id., para 8.Google Scholar

67 Art. 48 (now 39) EC.Google Scholar

68 Art. 52 (now 43) EC.Google Scholar

69 Arts. 59 & 60 (now 49 & 50) EC.Google Scholar

70 For example Case 2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State ECR 631, para 49; Case 33/74 Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, 1974 E.C.R. 1299, para. 23, Case 107/83, Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v. Onno Klopp, 1984 E.C.R. 2971, para. 8; Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14; Case 71/76, Jean Thieffry v. Conseil de l”ordre des avocats a la cour de Paris, 1977 E.C.R. 765, para. 27.Google Scholar

71 “In so far as such elements (in relation to health services of home respiratory treatments) are not obstacles to the establishment of the undertakings on Spanish territory it must be held, first of all, that no restriction on freedom of establishment exists in this case” (emphasises added). Also Case C-234/03, Contse SA, Vivisol Srl and Oxigen Salud SA v. Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud), 2005 E.C.R. 1-9315, para. 27.Google Scholar

72 Particularly with respect to the difficulty in the use of the Treaty grounds with respect to issues of justification in the context of direct discrimination.Google Scholar

73 Case 52/79, Procureurdu Roi v. Marc J.V.C. Debauve and others 1980 E.C.R. 833.Google Scholar

74 Id., para. 15.Google Scholar

75 Case C-434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, para. 22.Google Scholar

76 Joined cases C-158/04, & C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135.Google Scholar

77 Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v. Republik Osterreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659, paras. 62 & 64.Google Scholar

78 Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany 2002 E.C.R. I-9977, para. 23.Google Scholar

79 Id., para. 23.Google Scholar

80 Case C-432/03, Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic, 2005 E.C.R. I-9665, para. 41.Google Scholar

81 Case C-309/02, Radlberger Getrankegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I-11763, para. 60.Google Scholar

82 Case C-463/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-11705, paras. 53, 68 & 69.Google Scholar

83 Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1559, para. 19.Google Scholar

84 Case C-41/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-11375, para. 41. Similar Austrian measures were held to be “a barrier to trade” and French measures merely “measures having equivalent effect” in Case C-24/00, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1277, para. 23; Case C-150/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria, 2004 E.C.R. I-3887, para. 82, as were German measures in Case C-387/99, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751, para. 65.Google Scholar

85 Case192/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Denmark, 2003 E.C.R. 9693, para. 41.Google Scholar

86 Case C-12/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-459, para. 73. This resulted in the need to alter the packaging or the labelling of imported products. See also Case C-14/00 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2003 E.C.R. I-513, para. 73.Google Scholar

87 Case C-358/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-13145, para. 44.Google Scholar

88 C-297/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2007 E.C.R. I-7467, para. 74.Google Scholar

89 C-415/93, Union royale belge des societes de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liegeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations europeennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman, 1995 E.C.R, 1-4921, para. 96.Google Scholar

90 Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH 2000 E.C.R. I-493.Google Scholar

91 Id., para 18.Google Scholar

92 Art. 59 (now 49) EC. In the context of an habitual residence requirement imposed by the Dutch Bar on migrant nationals seeking to provide legal services in Holland. See also Case C-208/05, ITC Innovative Technology Center GmbH v. Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2007 E.C.R. 00, para. 11; Case C-490/04 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2007 E.C.R. I-6095, para. 63.Google Scholar

93 Case 33/74, 1974 E.C.R. 1299, para. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 In the context of Arts. 48 (now 39) EC and 52 (now 43) EC.Google Scholar

95 Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32.Google Scholar

96 Case C-234/03, Contse SA and Others v. Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria, 2005 E.C.R. 1-9315, para. 25.Google Scholar

97 Case C-131/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2003 E.C.R. 1-1659, para. 26. The same language was used in Case C-58/98, Josef Corsten, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 33 with respect to pursuing a skilled trades activity in Germany.Google Scholar

98 C-76/90, Manfred Sager v. Dennemeyer & Co 1991 E.C.R. 1-4221.Google Scholar

99 Id., para 12.Google Scholar

100 Case C-275/92, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039, para. 43. Also Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Calafiori, 2005 E.C.R. I-3875, para. 31 with respect to the right of establishment and the provision of services.Google Scholar

101 Case C-389/95, Siegfried Klattner v. Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State), 1997 E.C.R. I-2719, para. 16 & 19. In Case C-134/03, Viacom Outdoor SrL v. Giotto Immobilier SARL 2005 ECR I-1167. Article 49 EC was held not to preclude the levying of a municipal tax on advertising, para 39. In Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France SA v. Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl and Others, 1998 E.C.R. I-3949, there was held no restriction on the freedom to provide maritime transport services when considering the fees imposed by Italy for mooring services. In Case C-544/03, Mobistar SA v. Commune de Fleron and C-545/03 Belgacom Mobile SA v. Commune de Schaerbeek, 2005 E.C.R. I-7723, Belgium taxes with respect to mobile phone operators were held not to be a restriction on the freedom to provide services, para. 32.Google Scholar

102 The Finnish measure directly or indirectly prevents operators in other Member States from…making slot machines available to the public.” Case C-124/97, 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 29.Google Scholar

103 Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, para. 107.Google Scholar

104 Case 346/06, Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen 2008 E.C.R. I-1989, para. 14.Google Scholar

105 “And is thus capable in hindering intra-Community trade in services”. Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister Van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 38.Google Scholar

106 Case C-451/03, 2006 E.C.R. I-2941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107 In the context of a restriction on the right to provide services and the right of establishment.Google Scholar

108 Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Giuseppe Calafiori 2 2006 E.C.R. I-2941, para. 33. The Italian law “is liable to make more difficult, or even completely prevent, the exercise by economic operators from other Member States of their right to establish themselves in Italy with the aim of providing the services in question,” para. 34.Google Scholar

109 Case C-190/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110 “Such an event is too uncertain and indirect a possibility for legislation to be capable of being regarded as liable to hinder freedom of movement for workers,” para. 25.Google Scholar

111 Case C-190/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 Case C-319/06 Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, 2008 E.C.R. I-4323., para. 58.Google Scholar

113 Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 I-7289, para. 28. In Case 243/01 Gambelli and others, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031 para. 49, Italian betting legislation was held a restrictionon the right of establishment and the right to provide services.Google Scholar

114 Case C-250/06 United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA and Others v. Belgian State, 2007 E.C.R. I-11135, para. 38.Google Scholar

115 Case C-493/99 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2001 E.C.R. I-8163, para. 18. In Joined Cases C-51/96 & C-191/97 Christelle Deliege v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associees ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union europeenne de judo and François Pacquee, 2000 E.C.R. I-2549, a requirement of prior authorisation before participation in an international judo competition did “[not] constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services” (emphasis added), para. 69.Google Scholar

116 C-415/93 Union royale belge des societes de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liegeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations europeennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. 1-4921, paras, 100 & 104.Google Scholar

117 Case C-446/03, 2005 E.C.R. I-10837, para. 34.Google Scholar

118 Joined Cases C-151/04 & C-152/04, 2005 E.C.R. I-11203, para. 36.Google Scholar

119 Arts. 49 & 50 EC; Case C-433/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-10653, para. 32.Google Scholar

120 Case C-76/05, Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v. Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach, 2007 E.C.R. I-06849, para. 67.Google Scholar

121 Case C-456/05, 2007 E.C.R. I-10517, para. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122 Case C-389/05, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 2008, E.C.R. I-5337, para. 66.Google Scholar

123 Case C-76/90, 1991 I-4221, para. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124 Case C-367/98, 2002 E.C.R. I –4731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

125 See, supra, note 125, para. 44.Google Scholar

126 See, supra, note 125, para. 45.Google Scholar

127 See BARNARD (note 47), 528 (Oxford University Press 2nd ed., 2007).Google Scholar

128 Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v. Republik Österreich, 1999 E.C.R. –3099, para. 39.Google Scholar

129 Case C-11/07, Hans Eckelkamp and Others v. Belgische Staat, [2008] E.C.R. I-6845, para. 54.Google Scholar

130 Case C-377/07, Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim v. STEKO Industriemontage GmbH, 2009 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (First Chamber), 22 January 2009, para. 27.Google Scholar

131 Case C–43/07, D. M. M. A. Arens-Sikken v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, [2008] E.C.R. I-6887, para. 46.Google Scholar

132 C-194/06 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. Orange European Smallcap Fund NV, 2008 E.C.R. I-3747, para. 56.Google Scholar

133 Art. 12 (ex 6) EC. Also for example, Art 39(2) EC in relation to the worker.Google Scholar

134 C-76/90, 1991 E.C.R. 1–4221.Google Scholar

135 See, supra, note 135, para. 21.Google Scholar

136 See, supra, note 135, para. 14.Google Scholar

137 Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister Van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 39.Google Scholar

138 Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, para. 104.Google Scholar

139 Or obstacle.Google Scholar

140 Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 E.C.R. I-7289.Google Scholar

141 Case C–446/03, Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), 2005 E.C.R. I-10837.Google Scholar

142 Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 E.C.R. I-7289.Google Scholar

143 Case C–446/03, Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), 2005 E.C.R. I-10837.Google Scholar

144 Art. 12 (ex 6) EC.Google Scholar

145 Case C-136/00, R v. Danner 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

146 Id.Google Scholar

147 Case 136/00 R v. Danner, 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. 34.A.G. (opinion of AG Jacobs).Google Scholar

148 Id., para. 57.Google Scholar

149 Within the meaning of Art 49 EC, para. 34.Google Scholar

150 Case C-124/97, 1999 E.C.R. I-6067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151 Id., para. 29.Google Scholar

152 Case C–433/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-10653.Google Scholar

153 Id., para. 32.Google Scholar

154 Case C–434/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, para. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

155 Joined cases C-158/04 & C-159/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 20.Google Scholar

156 Both imported and exported product.Google Scholar

157 C-254/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium, 2007 E.C.R. I–4269, para. 32.Google Scholar

158 Noted by Advocate-General Jacobs. Case 136/00, R v. Danner, 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. A.G. 35.Google Scholar

159 An observation made by Advocate-General Jacobs. See, supra, note 159, para. 35.Google Scholar

160 Regulation (EEC) No 1612 of 15 October 1968, Official Journal L 257, 19/10/1968 p. 2. OJ Sp. Ed. 1968, No. L257/2, p. 475.Google Scholar

161 Case C-278/03, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2005 E.C.R. I-3747, para. 16, in respect of an Italian failure “to have regard to those rights in respect of access of Community nationals to recruitment competitions for teaching staff in the State schools of that Member State.”Google Scholar

162 25 October 2001.Google Scholar

163 Case C-398/98, 2001 E.C.R. 1-7915, para. 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

164 Case C-311/97, 1999 E.C.R. I-2651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

165 Id., para. 30.Google Scholar

166 Case C-244/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-885.Google Scholar

167 12 January 2006.Google Scholar

168 “Such restrictions, if discriminatory, are prohibited by Article 49 EC, unless they are justified by the combined provisions of Articles 46 EC and 55 EC,” para. 12.Google Scholar

169 Barnard (note 47), 803 (Oxford University Press 4th ed., 2007).Google Scholar

170 Case C-234/03, 2005 E.C.R. 1-9315.Google Scholar

171 See, supra, note 171.Google Scholar

172 See, supra, note 171, para. 37.Google Scholar

173 See, supra, note 171, para. 37.Google Scholar

174 Case C-234/03, 2005 E.C.R. 9315.Google Scholar

175 This is to some extent confirmed by Case C–471/04 Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v. Keller Holding GmbH, 2006 E.C.R. I-2107, para. 30. “The provisions concerning freedom of establishment are directed to ensuring that foreign nationals and companies are treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State, they also prohibit the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of one of its nationals or of a company incorporated under its legislation.”Google Scholar

176 Case C-234/03, 2005 E.C.R. 1-9315.Google Scholar

177 See, supra, note 177.Google Scholar

178 See, Supra, note 177.Google Scholar

179 See Barnard (note 47), 555 (Oxford University Press 2nd ed., 2007)Google Scholar

180 On the grounds of nationality. See for example Art. 12 (ex 6) EC.Google Scholar

181 Consideration of the issue of justification is not however obligatory. In Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, the issue of justification did not arise. The fixing of a minimum alcohol content for alcoholic beverages was considered contrary to Art 30 (now 28) EC, para. 15.Google Scholar

182 Case C-17/93, 1994 E.C.R. I-3537, para. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

183 The onus is on the Member State to provide proof of justification. For example, in Case C-283/99 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2001 E.C.R. I–4363, para. 26, it was held that Italy “had not shown the existence of any grounds of public policy or public security” which was capable of justifying the provision that private security work be carried out only by Italian security firms which employed Italian nationals. The same applies to the justifications in relation to the free movement of goods. For example in Case 121/85 Conegate Limited v. HM Customs & Excise, 1986 E.C.R. 1007, paras. 15 & 16 the United Kingdom failed in an attempted justification, national law permitted the host national to supply the same goods; they were freely available in that state.Google Scholar

184 With respect to the fee movement of goods, Art 30 (ex 36) EC; to the worker, Art 39(3) (ex 48(3)) EC; the provision of services, Art 55 (ex 66) EC and the right of establishment, Art 46 (ex 56) EC.Google Scholar

185 See, supra, note 187.Google Scholar

186 Art. 30 (ex 36) EC provides: The provisions of Arts 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.”Google Scholar

187 Case 113/80, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland, 1981 E.C.R. 1625, para. 7. Case 46/76 W. J. G. Bauhuis v. The Netherlands State, 1977 E.C.R. 5, para. 12.Google Scholar

188 Case 113/80, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland, 1981 E.C.R. 1625, para. 8.Google Scholar

189 Case 34/79, Regina v. Maurice Donald Henn and John Frederick Ernest Darby, 1979 E.C.R. 3795, para. 22.Google Scholar

190 Case 121/85, Conegate Limited v. HM Customs and Exercise, 1986 E.C.R. 1007.Google Scholar

191 Case C-398/98, 2001 E.C.R. 1-7915.Google Scholar

192 Case C-398/98 Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic 2001 E.C.R. 1-7915, para. 44 (opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer).Google Scholar

193 Case, C-170/04 Klas Rosengren and others v. Riksåklagaren 2007 E.C.R. I–4071, para. 58.Google Scholar

194 Case, C-170/04 Klas Rosengren and others v. Riksåklagaren 2007 E.C.R. I–4071, para. 56.Google Scholar

195 And which are therefore discriminatory. Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, para. 32.Google Scholar

196 Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I–4007, para. 11. For example in Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, paras. 32 & 33 in relation to services, only the ground of “public policy” was available as justification.Google Scholar

197 Provided by Art. 39(2) (ex 48(2)) EC; Art. 46 (ex Art 56) EC; Art. 55 (ex 66) EC.Google Scholar

198 Such as that of securing for a national public foundation all the revenue from advertising intended especially for the public of the Member State in question.” Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, para. 34. See also Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I–4007, para. 11; Case C-17/92, Federacion de Distribuidores Cinematograficos v. Estado Español et Union de Productores de Cine y Television, 1993 E.C.R. I-2239, para. 16.Google Scholar

199 In the context of the provisions of services. Case C-17/92, Federacion de Distribuidores Cinematograficos v. Estado Español et Union de Productores de Cine y Television, 1993 E.C.R. I-2239, para. 20. The same observation is made in relation to the right of establishment and art 46 (ex 56) EC by Advocate General M. Jean Mischo. Case 3/88, Re Data Processing Contracts: E.C. Commission v. Italy, 1989 E.C.R. 4035, para. 33.Google Scholar

200 So that [the] scope of the free movement provisions cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State”. Case 41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office, 1974 E.C.R. 1337, para. 18; Case 147/86, Commission v. Greece, 1998 E.C.R. 1637, para. 7; Case C-114/97, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, 1998 E.C.R. 1-6717, para. 34.Google Scholar

201 See Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms BARNARD (note 47).253 (Oxford University Press 2nd ed., 2007).Google Scholar

202 Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, para. 36.Google Scholar

203 Making distribution of cable programmes transmitted by broadcasters established in other Member States conditional upon the absence of advertisements together with the prohibition of the subtitling of those programmes in Dutch. The Dutch rules were therefore discriminatory in relation to origin.Google Scholar

204 Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, para. 37, in relation to Article 56 (now 46) EC.Google Scholar

205 Id., para. 35.Google Scholar

206 See, supra, note 205.Google Scholar

207 By the Dutch Government.Google Scholar

208 “For instance, broadcasters of commercial programmes established in other Member States could be given a choice between complying with objective restrictions on the transmission of advertising, such as a prohibition on advertising certain products,” id., para. 37.Google Scholar

209 Case 79/85, 1986 E.C.R. 2375, para. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

210 Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

211 See supra, note 1 Art 28 (ex 30) EC. p.47.Google Scholar

212 Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8. Increasingly, the terms of “imperative requirements” or “overriding reasons in the general interest” are used in the judgments.Google Scholar

213 The fundamental assumption is that there should be no valid reason why, provided that [goods]… have been lawfully produced and marketed in one of the Member States, [they] should not be introduced into any other Member State.” Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14. It is a presumption that can be rebutted when further measures are necessary to protect the interest concerned, the actions of the Member State must be proportionate. The burden of proving that a measure is necessary is onerous. See for example Case 16/83, Criminal proceedings against Karl Prantl, 1984 E.C.R. 1299; Case 182/84, Criminal proceedings against Miro BV, 1985 E.C.R. 3731; Case 286/86, Ministere public v. Gerard Deserbais, 1988 E.C.R. 4907. Note also Case C-317/91, Deutsche Renault AG v. AUDI AG, 1993 E.C.R. I-6227.Google Scholar

214 Case 120/78, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8.Google Scholar

215 Id., para. 12.Google Scholar

216 Id., para 8. The defences of consumer protection and fair trading are only available to the “mandatory requirement”. Case 434/85, Allen and Hanburys Ltd v. Generics (UK) Ltd, 1988 E.C.R. 1245, para. 35; Case 113/80, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland, 1981 E.C.R. 1625, para. 10.Google Scholar

217 On the ground that protection of the environment is “one of the Community's essential objectives”. Case 302/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Denmark, 1988 E.C.R. 4607, paras. 8- 9. In this judgment national rules establishing a deposit and return system for empty drinks containers were justified, para. 13.Google Scholar

218 Case 368/95, Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags-und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag, 1997 E.C.R. I-3689, para. 34.Google Scholar

219 Case 60/84, Cinetheque SA and others v. Federation nationale des cinemas français, 1985 E.C.R. 2605, para. 23.Google Scholar

220 Case 302/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Denmark, 1988 E.C.R. 4607, para. 6.Google Scholar

221 Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

222 Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

223 Case 60/84, 1985 E.C.R. 2605, para. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

224 Case 261/81, 1982 E.C.R. 3961, para. 20.Google Scholar

225 Case 286/86, 1988 E.C.R. 4907, para. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

226 Case 178/84, 1987 E.C.R. 1227, para. 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

227 Art. 36 (now 30 EC). Case 178/84, 1987 E.C.R. 1227, para. 26.Google Scholar

228 Lawfully in circulation in other Member States, Id., para. 47.Google Scholar

229 See, supra, note 227, para. 47.Google Scholar

230 Case C-67/97, 1998 E.C.R. I-8033, para. 37.Google Scholar

231 Art. 36 (now 30) EC.Google Scholar

232 Case C-67/97, Criminal proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme, 1998 E.C.R. I-8033, para. 37.Google Scholar

233 For example Case C-237/94, John O'Flynn v. Adjudication Officer, 1996 E.C.R. I-2617, para. 23.Google Scholar

234 1995 E.C.R. I-225, para. 40. See also Case C-204/90, Bachmann v. Belgium, 1992 E.C.R. I-249, para. 28.Google Scholar

235 Case 111/85, Lynne Watson and Alessandro Belmann, 1976 E.C.R. 1185, para. 22.Google Scholar

236 Case 33/74, 1974 E.C.R. 1299, para. 12.Google Scholar

237 See, supra, note 234. para. 23.Google Scholar

238 Id., para. 29.Google Scholar

239 Case 33/88, Pilar Allue and Carmel Mary Coonan v. Universita degli studi di Venezia, 1989 E.C.R. 1591, para. 16.Google Scholar

240 Case C-350/96, 1998 E.C.R. 1-2521.Google Scholar

241 Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I–4007 paras. 22 & 24.Google Scholar

242 Case C-180/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-709, para. 24. See also Case C-154/89, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-659, para. 21. and Case C-198/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-727, para. 21.Google Scholar

243 Joined cases C-158/04 & C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 20; Case C-54/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Finland, 2007 E.C.R. I-2473, para. 38. The terminology used in the latter instance was that of “imperative requirements.” See also Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral (Cassis de Dijon), 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8. and C-297/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2007 E.C.R. I-7467, para. 74.Google Scholar

244 Case C–434/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171.Google Scholar

245 Importing issues of direct discrimination. Id., para. 6.Google Scholar

246 Id., para. 23.Google Scholar

247 Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8.Google Scholar

248 Case C–441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt para. 26. See also Joined cases C-158/04 & C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio and Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 20.Google Scholar

249 Joined cases C-158/04 & C-159/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 20.Google Scholar

250 The measure was clearly indirectly discriminatory. Id., para. 10.Google Scholar

251 In this instance, consumer or health protection. See, supra, note 250, para. 23.Google Scholar

252 In circumstance where the marketing of the national drinks and that of the import was not affected in the same manner. Case C–463/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-11705, para. 69.Google Scholar

253 Id., para. 75. On similar facts, see also Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getrankegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I-11763, para. 74. The German rules applied without distinction, para. 61.Google Scholar

254 The measure was indirectly discriminatory; the protection of human health is one of the objectives of the Community policy on the environment”. Case C–41/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-11375, paras. 23 & 45. See also Case C-150/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria, 2004 ECR I-3887, para 84; Case C-387/99 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751, para. 67; Case C-24/00, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1277, para. 53; Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1559, para. 23; Case C-95/01, Criminal proceedings against John Greenham and Leonard Abel, 2004 E.C.R. I-1333, para. 34; Case C-192/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Denmark, 2003 E.C.R. I-9693, para. 42.Google Scholar

255 Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v. Republik Osterreich, 2003 E.C.R. I5659, para. 80.Google Scholar

256 Case C-12/00, 2003 E.C.R. I–459, para. 83.Google Scholar

257 Case C–441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 26.Google Scholar

258 Id., para. 26. in the context of national measures concerning promotional parties held in relation to the selling of jewelry.Google Scholar

259 Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 I-7289, para. 37. See also Case C–446/03 Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), 2005 E.C.R. I-10837, para. 35; Case C-250/95, Futura Participations and Singer, 1997 E.C.R. I-2471, para. 26; Case C-9/02, De Lasteyrie du Saillant, 2004 E.C.R. I-2409, para. 49; Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32; Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v. Kihlakunnansyyttaja (Jyvaskyla) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 36.Google Scholar

260 Together with an evaluation of the proportionality of the appropriateness of such response by the Member State in the circumstances.Google Scholar

261 Case C-55/94, 1995 E.C.R. I–4165, para. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

262 Gebhard, arose from the suspension of a German national by the Milan bar for the use of the title of that bar.Google Scholar

263 See, supra, note 262, para 37. See also C-19/92, Kraus v. Land Baden-Wuerttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32.Google Scholar

264 See, supra, note 262.Google Scholar

265 Cross reference has for example been made with respect to the worker in C–415/93, Union royale belge des societes de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liegeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations europeennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. I–4921. See, inter alia, the judgment in Case C-19/92 Kraus v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32. and Case C-55/94 Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I-04165, paras. 37 and 104.Google Scholar

266 Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA v. To Me Group Advertising Media 2008 E.C. R., para. 37.Google Scholar

267 See for example the list given in Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I–4007, para. 14.Google Scholar

268 Case C-76/90, 1991 E.C.R. 1–4221, para. 15. The measure issue did not pass the test of proportionality, para. 20.Google Scholar

269 Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 33.Google Scholar

270 Case C-79/01, Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl and Others, 2002 E.C. R. 1-8923, para. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

271 Consider for example, in relation to the remuneration of sight accounts in euros, the encouragement of medium and long term savings. Case C–442/02, Caixa-Bank France v. Ministere de L”Economie, des Finances, De L”Industrie (Banque Fédérale des Banques Populaires and Others), 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 24.Google Scholar

272 Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v. Kihlakunnansyyttaja (Jyvaskyla) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 33.Google Scholar

273 Case C-275/92, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler, 1994 E. C. R. 1-1039, para. 63.Google Scholar

274 Case C-215/01, Bruno Schnitzer, 2003 E.C.R. I-14847, para. 35.Google Scholar

275 Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 I-7289, para. 36.Google Scholar

276 C-76/90, Manfred Sager v. Dennemeyer & Co. Ltd, 1991 1–4221, para. 16.Google Scholar

277 Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister Van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 39.Google Scholar

278 Case 198/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, 1991 E.C.R. 1-727, para. 21. See also Case C-153/02, Valentina Neri v. European School of Economics (ESE Insight World Education System Ltd), 2003 E.C.R. 1-13555, para. 45 with respect to ensuring high standards in University education.Google Scholar

279 Case C-58/98, Josef Corsten, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 33.Google Scholar

280 Case C-250/03, Mauri v. Ministero Della Giustizia and Commissione Per Gli Esami Di Avvocato Presso La Corte D'Appello Di Milano, 2005 E.C.R. I-1267, para. 11.Google Scholar

281 Case C–446/03, Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), 2005 E.C.R. I-10837, para. 51.Google Scholar

282 Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell”Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I–4165, para. 37.Google Scholar

283 Case C-140/03, Commission v. Greece, 2005 E.C.R. I-3177, para. 34.Google Scholar

284 Case C-288/89, 1991 E.C.R. I–4007, para. 25.Google Scholar

285 Case C–445/03, 2004 E.C.R. 1-10191, para. 21.Google Scholar

286 Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

287 See, supra, note 286, para. 21.Google Scholar

288 Case C-275/92, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039, para. 43.Google Scholar

289 Case C-67/98, 1999 I-7289. These issues were sent to the national court for determination, para. 37.Google Scholar

290 Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I–4165.Google Scholar

291 See for example Case 203/80, Casati, 1981 E.C.R. 2595, para. 27.Google Scholar

292 Case C–441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 27.Google Scholar

293 Case C–434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, paras. 31 & 38.Google Scholar

294 Pertaining to Art. 30 (ex 36) EC.Google Scholar

295 Case C–434/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, para. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

296 Could less restrictive means have been used to ensure a similar result? Id., para. 38.Google Scholar

297 Art. 30 (ex 36) EC.Google Scholar

298 Case C-95/01, Criminal proceedings against John Greenham and Leonard Abel, 2004 E.C.R. I-1333, paras. 41 & 47. Case C-192/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Denmark, 2003 E.C.R. I-9693, para. 47.Google Scholar

299 Case C–41/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-11375, para. 41.Google Scholar

300 Case C–41/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-11375 para. 41. A similar request was made for example in Case C-150/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria, 2004 E.C.R. I-3887, para. 84. In Case C-24/00, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1277, French measures were held disproportionate. It was noted that no detailed assessment as to the effects on public health resulting from the addition of vitamins and minerals to confectionary and drinks, para. 62. In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I-1559, the national measure was held disproportionate, the Italian Government had not shown that the imposition of a prior authorisation procedure for the marking of sports food had was in response to a health risk, para. 24.Google Scholar

301 Case C-387/99, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751, para. 67.Google Scholar

302 Joined Cases C-158/04, and C-159/04, 2006 E.C.R‥ 1-8135.Google Scholar

303 Id., para. 25.Google Scholar

304 Case C–463/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-11705, para. 79. The same question with respect to proportionality, that of the imposition of a reasonable transitional period, arose in Case C-309/02, Radlberger Getrankegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I-11763, para. 81.Google Scholar

305 Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v. Republik Osterreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659, para. 93.Google Scholar

306 Case C-12/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I–459, para. 93.Google Scholar

307 Case C-76/90, Manfred Sager v. Dennemeyer & Co. Ltd, 1991 E.C.R. 1–4221, para. 15; Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 I-7289, para. 37.Google Scholar

308 Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 42. In the context of postgraduate titles and the facilitation of access to the host profession, was the verification procedure solely intended to verify that the award to the migrant was made properly? Was the authorisation procedure easily accessible, not for example dependent upon payment of excessive fees? Was the verification procedure carried out with respect for fundamental rights? Were any penalties imposed proportionate? paras. 37–41.Google Scholar

309 Case C-79/01, Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl and Others, 2002 E.C. R. 1-8923, para. 37.Google Scholar

310 Case C–446/03, 2005 E.C.R. I-10837.Google Scholar

311 Regarding competence in tax matters with respect to companies. Id., para. 36.Google Scholar

312 See, supra, note 311, para. 55.Google Scholar

313 C-76/90, 1991 E.C.R. 1–4221, para. 17.Google Scholar

314 Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

315 See, supra, note 314, para. 17.Google Scholar

316 Case C–442/02, Caixa-Bank France v. Ministere de L'Economie, des Finances, De L'Industrie (Banque Fédérale des Banques Populaires and Others), 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 21.Google Scholar

317 Case C-198/89, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, 1991 E.C.R. 1-727, para. 25.Google Scholar

318 Case C-153/02, Valentina Neri v. European School of Economics (ESE) Insight World Education System Ltd, 2003 E.C.R. 1-13555, para. 48.Google Scholar

319 Case C-58/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 49.Google Scholar

320 Case C-67/98, 1999 I-7289, para. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

321 Case C-389/05, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic 2008 E.C.R., I-5337, para. 97.Google Scholar

322 Case C-79/01, Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl and Others, 2002 E.C. R. 1-8923, para. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

323 See for example in relation to the remuneration of sight accounts in euros, the encouragement of medium and long term savings. Case C–442/02, Caixa-Bank France v. Ministere de L'Economie, des Finances, De L'Industrie (Banque Fédérale des Banques Populaires and Others), 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 24.Google Scholar

324 Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v. Kihlakunnansyyttaja (Jyvaskyla) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 33.Google Scholar

325 Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I–4165 para. 37.Google Scholar

326 Art. 30 (ex 36) EC.Google Scholar

327 Case C–433/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-10653.Google Scholar

328 Id., para. 35. The measure was not justified, paras. 37 & 42.Google Scholar

329 Art. 55 (ex 66) EC.Google Scholar

330 Public/general interest.Google Scholar

331 Case C-58/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, paras. 40 – 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

332 Case C-67/98, 1999 I-7289, para. 27.Google Scholar

333 Id., para. 37.Google Scholar

334 In the context of the free movement of goods, these questions were regarded by Advocate General Jacobs as “preliminary one[s].” Case C-379/98, Preussenelektra AG Schleswag AG, 2001 E.C.R. 1-2099, para. 225.Google Scholar

335 Case C-136/00, 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. 40.Google Scholar

336 Id., para. 40.Google Scholar

337 See, supra, note 336, para. 40.Google Scholar

338 The activities of the Community include “an internal market characterised by the abolition of… obstacles to then free movement of goods, persons and services” (emphasis added). Art. 3(c) EC.Google Scholar

339 See, supra, note 336, para. 40.Google Scholar

340 Id.Google Scholar

341 Id.Google Scholar

342 Case C-2/90, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium, 1992 E.C.R. I–4431, para. 34.Google Scholar

343 As noted by Advocate General Jacobs, Case C-136/00, Rolf Dieter Danner, 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. 40.Google Scholar

344 Case C-379/98, 2001 E.C.R. 1-2099, paras. 225–228. In respect of the judgment in Case 389/96, Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1998 E.C.R. I–4473. In that case, the German measure appeared to discriminate directly against the import; the issue of justification was by reference to considerations of ‘public health’ and ‘environmental protection.’ In judgment the Court did not consider the issue of direct discrimination.Google Scholar

345 Case C–41/02, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-11375, para. 41; Case C-387/99, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751, para. 81.Google Scholar

346 See, supra, note 345, paras. 225–228.Google Scholar

347 “Expressly recognised by the ECHR”. Case C-112/00, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659, para. 79.Google Scholar

348 This does not extend to the justification of the national provision relating to capital. Here there is a more extensive range of express derogations available to the Member State than in comparison to those available in relation to measures concerning the free movement of goods, persons and services.Google Scholar

349 Noted by Advocate General Jacobs. Case C-379/98, Preussenelektra AGSchleswag AG, 2001 E.C.R. 1-2099, AG, para. 226.Google Scholar

350 Case C-2/90, 1992 E.C.R. I–4431.Google Scholar

351 The rigidity of the Treaty justifications was thereby respected, Advocate General Jacobs. See, supra, note 350, para. 34.Google Scholar

352 Case C-110/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Grand Chamber),10 February 2009.Google Scholar

353 Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber) 4 June 2009.Google Scholar

354 “So long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States”. Joined cases C-267/91 & C-268/91, Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, 1993 1 E.C.R. 6097, para. 16.Google Scholar

355 Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

356 See, supra, note 355, para. 17.Google Scholar

357 Case C-110/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Grand Chamber),10 February 2009, para. 77 (opinion of AG Bot).Google Scholar

358 Id.Google Scholar

359 See, supra, note 354.Google Scholar

360 See, supra, note 358, Advocate General Bot, para. 1.Google Scholar

361 See, supra, note 358.Google Scholar

362 See, supra, note 354.Google Scholar

363 See, supra, note 358, para. 159.Google Scholar

364 See, supra, note 354, para. 55.Google Scholar

365 See, supra, note 358, paras. 79 & 81.Google Scholar

366 See, supra, note 358, para. 81.Google Scholar

367 See, supra, note 355.Google Scholar

368 See, supra, note 358, para. 81.Google Scholar

369 See, supra, note 358, para. 80.Google Scholar

370 See, supra, note 358, para. 83.Google Scholar

371 See, supra, note 358, para. 82.Google Scholar

372 See, supra, note 358, para. 88.Google Scholar

373 The creation of a single and integrated market. See, supra, note 358, para. 91.Google Scholar

374 See, supra, note 358, para. 91.Google Scholar

375 See, supra, note 354, Advocate General Kokott, para. 57.Google Scholar

376 Id., para. 58.Google Scholar

377 Opinion delivered 14 December 2006, Id., para. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

378 See, supra, note 355, para. 16.Google Scholar

379 See, supra, note 358, para. 86.Google Scholar

380 See, supra, note 358, para. 75.Google Scholar

381 Joined Cases C-158/04 and C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos and Carrefour-Marinopoulos, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135. See, supra, note 358, para. 84.Google Scholar

382 See, supra, note 358, para. 79.Google Scholar

383 See, supra, note 358, para. 86.Google Scholar

384 See, supra, note 358, para. 77.Google Scholar

385 See supra, note 358, para. 93.Google Scholar

386 See, supra, note 358, para. 94.Google Scholar

387 Joined Cases C-158/04 and C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos and Carrefour-Marinopoulos, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 25.Google Scholar

388 See, supra, note 358, para 85. A de minimis approach was recommended by Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in Case C–412/93, Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 42.Google Scholar

389 See, in particular, Picod, F., La nouvelle approche de la Cour de justice en matière d”entraves aux échanges”, Vol 34 No 2, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, p. 169, (1998); Mattera, A., “De l'arrět Dassonville à l'arrět Keck: l'obscure clarté d'une jurisprudence riche en principes novateurs et en contradictions“, Revue du Marché Unique Européen, No 1, 1994, p. 117; Weatherill, S., “After Keck: some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification”, 33 C.M.L. Rev, p. 885, (1996); Kovar, R., “Dassonville, Keck et les autres: de la mesure avant toute chose”, Vol 42 No 2, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, p. 213, (2006); Poiares Maduro, M., “Keck: The End? The Beginning of the End? Or just the End of the Beginning?”, I.J. E. L. Vol 3 No 1, p. 30, (1994).Google Scholar

390 See, supra, note 358, para. 85.Google Scholar

391 See, supra, note 355.Google Scholar

392 Judgment 10 February 2009, para. 58.Google Scholar

393 Case C-142/05, 2006. Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber) 4 June 2009.Google Scholar

394 With respect for example to rights of establishment, Art. 43 EC and services, Art. 49 EC.Google Scholar

395 The Treaty grounds are to be strictly interpreted.Google Scholar

396 So too with respect to the jurisprudence in matters related to taxation. See Barnard (note 47), 319.Google Scholar

397 Note the observation of the observation of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-136/00, Rolf Dieter Danner, 2002 E.C.R. I-8147, para. 40.Google Scholar

398 Case C-110/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Grand Chamber), 10 February 2009.Google Scholar

399 Case C-142/05. Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber) 4 June 2009Google Scholar

400 See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar

401 See, supra, note 400. paras. 91–93.Google Scholar

402 See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar

403 See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar