“Market Access” or Bust? Positioning the Principle within the Jurisprudence of Goods, Persons, Services, and Capital

Tim Connor

doi:10.1017/S207183220002071X

¹ See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 34, 13 Dec. 2007, 2010 O.J. (C083) 1 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

² This is not strictly true. With respect to the worker, it has been determined that Treaty free movement provisions operate in the same manner as the other Treaty free movement provisions. See Case 96/85, Comm'n v. France, 1986 E.C.R. 1475; see also TFEU art. 49 (respecting establishment); TFEU art. 56 (respecting services); TFEU art. 63 (with respect to capital).Google Scholar

³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 36. With respect to goods, justification is either by recourse to TFEU art. 36 or to the “mandatory requirement”; see also TFEU art. 45(3) (worker); TFEU art. 52(1) (establishment); TFEU art. 56 (services).Google Scholar

⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 18 (“Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”).Google Scholar

⁵ Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649 [hereinafter Rewe-Zentral].Google Scholar

⁶ Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837 [hereinafter Dassonville] (originally introducing with respect to goods).Google Scholar

⁷ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italian Republic, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 35 [hereinafter Commission v. Italy]: “It is also apparent from settled caselaw that Article 28 EC [now Art. 34 TFEU] reflects the obligation to respect the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets.” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁸ Id. Google Scholar

⁹ Id. at para. 56 (“A prohibition on the use of a product in the territory of a Member State has a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers, which, in its turn, affects the access of that product to the market of that Member State.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273 [hereinafter Mickelsson].Google Scholar

¹¹ Id. at para. 28 (“Such regulations have the effect of hindering the access to the domestic market.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

¹² See Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹³ See Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

¹⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See TFEU art. 45 (worker); see also TFEU art. 49 (establishment); Case T-266/97, Vlaamse Televisie Maatschapij NV v. Comm'n, 1999 E.C.R. I-2329 [hereinafter Maatschapij].Google Scholar

¹⁶ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁷ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

²¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

²² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45 (for workers); see also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49 (for establishment); TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56 (for services); TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63 (for capital).Google Scholar

²³ Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837, para. 6 (holding unlawful Belgian requirements relating to proof of origin because they prevented access to the Belgian market of Scotch whisky which had imported through third party states). Such laws, it was held, “should not act as a hindrance to trade between Member States and should, in consequence, be accessible to all Community nationals” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Joined Cases C-268/91 & C-276/91, Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and David Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, Case C-276/91, Comm'n v. French Republic, 1993 E.C.R. I-4413 [hereinafter collectively Keck and Mithouard].Google Scholar

²⁵ Id.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. Google Scholar

²⁷ Barnard, Catherine, Trailing a New Approach to Free Movement of Goods?, 68 Cambridge L.J. 288, 290 (2009).Google Scholar

²⁸ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

³⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45 (for worker); see also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49 (establishment); see generally Maatschapij, para. 107.Google Scholar

³¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

³³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34 (stating a fundamental Treaty principle); see also Case C-333/08, Comm'n v. France, judgment of 28 January 2010.Google Scholar

³⁴ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 1 (imposing this principle in the context of goods by Articles 34); see also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34 (providing that “[q]uantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States”).Google Scholar

³⁵ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

³⁶ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34. There are many examples of the application of the principle of nondiscrimination in jurisprudence relating to the free movement of goods. See, e.g., Tim Connor, Goods, Persons, Services and Capital in the European Union: Jurisprudential Routes to Free Movement, 11 German L.J. 159 (2010).Google Scholar

³⁷ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649 (introducing the principle of mutual recognition into jurisprudence relating to goods).Google Scholar

³⁸ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 38.Google Scholar

³⁹ Case C-174/82, Criminal proceedings against Sandoz BV, 1983 E.C.R. 2445 [hereinafter Sandoz BV].Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

⁴² Sandoz BV, 1983 E.C.R. 2445, para. 7.Google Scholar

⁴³ Id. (proceeding to the issue of justification and not considering the detail of this aspect).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Id. (concerning, in essence, indirectly discriminatory Dutch measures related to the marketing of vitamin-enriched foodstuffs within Holland).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Id. at para. 26 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id. at para. 14 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id. at para. 15 (noting the judgment was decided on the basis that “[t]he concept of ‘measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports’ contained in Article 30 of the Treaty is to be understood to mean that the fixing of a minimum alcohol content for alcoholic beverages intended for human consumption by the legislation of a Member State also falls within the prohibition laid down in that provision where the importation of alcoholic beverages lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State is concerned” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id. at para. 17 (referencing to the imported good, French law was held “not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34.Google Scholar

⁵² Sandoz BV, 1993 E.C.R. 2445, para 26.Google Scholar

⁵³ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649, paras. 6, 14–15.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-519, para. 17.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Sandoz BV, 1983 E.C.R. 2445.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273, para. 28.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 18 (noting that the general Treaty provision in this respect provides “within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited”).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14 (introducing the market access principle).Google Scholar

⁶² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁶³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45 (respecting the worker); see also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49 (respecting establishment); Maatschapij, 1999 E.C.R. I-2329, para. 107 (noting this jurisprudence).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. at para. 5 (“All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.”).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Direct and indirect discrimination are alternatively termed distinctly and indistinctly discriminatory. Commission Directive 70/50, art. 2(2), 1970 O.J. (L 13) 29 (EC) (initiating Court use of these terms).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Derrick Wyatt & Alan Dashwood, European Community Law, 221 (3d ed. 1993) (emphasis added). Note that consideration of the concept of discrimination was also important in the context of the judgment of Keck. Keck and Mithouard, para. 17.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34 (explaining that “Article 28 EC [now TFEU art. 34] reflects the obligation to respect the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets”).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Case C-249/81, Comm'n v. Ireland, 1982 E.C.R. 4005, para. 25.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at para. 20. The introduction of the “guaranteed Irish” symbol was indirectly discriminatory of the imported product. Id. at para 26.Google Scholar

⁷³ Id. at para. 25 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Case 231/83, Henri Cullet and Chambre syndicale des réparateurs automobiles et détaillants de produits pétroliers v. Centre Leclerc à Toulouse and Centre Leclerc à Saint-Orens-de -Gameville, 1985 E.C.R 305, para. 20 [hereinafter Cullet] (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Case C-108/09, Ker-Optika bt v. ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete, judgment of 2 December 2010 [hereinafter Ker-Optika] (noting that hence the Hungarian measure was discriminatory).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Id. at para. 54 (noting the requirements laid down by the Hungarian law for the marketing of contact lenses affected the selling of imported products to a greater degree than the domestic product) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Case 207/83, Comm'n v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1985 E.C.R. 1201, para 18.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14 (introducing this principle); see, e.g. Case C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital SL v. Adminstración General del Estado; Distribuidora de Televisión Digital SA (DTS), 2002 E.C.R. I-607; Case C-123/00, Bellamy and English Shop Wholesale, 2001 E.C.R. I-2795, para. 18.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34 (“It is also apparent from settled caselaw that Article 28 EC [now TFEU 34] reflects the obligation to respect the principle of … mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14. The use of the market access principle is in evidence on many occasions. See, e.g., Case 27/80, Criminal proceedings against Anton Adriaan Fietje, 1980 E.C.R. 3839, para. 15; Case 53/80, Officier van justitie v. Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV, 1981 E.C.R. 409, para. 11 (“In view of this disparity of rules it cannot be disputed that the prohibition by certain Member States of the marketing on their territory of processed cheese containing added nisin is of such a nature as to affect imports of that product from other Member States where, conversely, the addition of nisin is wholly or partially permitted and that it for that reason constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction.”); Case 6/81, BV Industrie Diensten Groep v. J.A. Beele Handelmaatschappij BV, 1982 E.C.R. 707, paras. 6–7; Case 261/81, Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v. De Smedt PVBA, 1982 E.C.R. 3961, para. 20 (noting the principle of mutual recognition was in operation, where a Belgian packaging measure was held unlawful in application to margarine imports “lawfully produced and marketed in [other Member] state[s]”); Case 788/79, Criminal proceedings against Herbert Gilli and Paul Andres, 1980 E.C.R. 2071, para. 12; Case 220/81, Criminal proceedings against Timothy Frederick Robertson and others, 1982 E.C.R. 2349, para. 12; Case C-293/93, Criminal proceedings against Ludomira Neeltje Barbara Houtwipper, 1994 E.C.R. I-4249, paras. 14–15 (respecting a law indicating their fineness in relation to the quantity of pure precious metal used); Case C-30/99, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2001 E.C.R. I-4619, para. 30; Case C-12/00, Comm'n v. Kingdom of Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-459, para. 80 (holding the prohibition on the sale of cocoa and chocolate products to which vegetable fats other than cocoa butter had been added being marketed as “chocolate” in Spain liable to obstruct intra-Community trade in those products lawfully manufactured in other Member States); Case C-14/00, Comm'n v. Italian Republic, 2003 E.C.R. I-513, paras. 70–78; Case C-366/04, Georg Schwarz v. Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, 2005 E.C.R. I-10139, paras. 29–30 (respecting the principle of “mutual recognition” which underpinned the judgment that an Austrian measure prohibiting the sale from vending machines of non-packaged products from vending machines was a hindrance to trade, noting “those same goods can be marketed abroad, in particular in Germany, without packaging“ (emphasis added)); see also Case 178/84, Comm'n v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 1987 E.C.R. 1227, para. 29; Case 176/84, Comm'n v. Hellenic Republic, 1987 E.C.R. 1193, para. 31 (relying on the principle of mutual recognition which operated to render unlawful a Greek law prohibiting marketing of imported beers manufactured from materials other than those stipulated from domestic law); Case 130/80, Criminal proceedings against Fabriek voor Hoogwaardige Voedingsprodukten Kelderman BV, 1981 E.C.R. 527, para. 16.Google Scholar

⁸² Case C-434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen and Mati Leppik, 2006 E.C.R. I-9171, para. 21. There was a respect too in this instance for the principle of mutual recognition. The national law was capable of “impeding access to the market for goods which are lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States.” Id. (emphasis added). It is noted that the Finnish measure was also considered a “restriction on trade.” Id. at para. 22 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁸³ Case C-432/03, Comm'n v. Portuguese Republic, 2005 E.C.R. I-9665 (relating to polyethylene pipes).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id. at para. 41 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Case C-54/05, Comm'n v. Finland, 2007 E.C.R. I-2473, para. 32 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Case C-254/05, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2007 E.C.R. I-4269, para. 41.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, para. 16.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, para. 16 (“National provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837), 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.”).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837, para. 5. (remaining inside that scrutiny, therefore, are product requirements, or “requirements to be met” by the goods, such as such as those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labeling, and packaging, and residual rules to the extent that they fall within the definition of a measure having equivalent effect as given in Dassonville).Google Scholar

⁹² Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, para. 16 (“By contrast, contrary to what has previously been decided, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment, 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.”).Google Scholar

⁹³ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Case C-401/92, Criminal proceedings against Tankstation ‘t Heukske vof and J. B. E. Boermans, 1994 E.C.R. I-2199, para. 15 (determining that a Dutch law relating to the opening hours of shops fell into the category of “certain selling arrangements”); see also Case C-391/92, Comm'n v. Greece, 1995 E.C.R. I-1621, para. 21 (applying the same “classification” to a reservation that processed milk be sold only in pharmacies); Case C-292/92, Hünermund and others v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-6787 [hereinafter Hünermund case] (regarding the German advertising rules prohibiting the advertising of quasi-pharmaceutical outside); Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para 48 (concerning French measures relating to television advertising); Case C-418/93, Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco et al, 1996 E.C.R. I-2975, para. 28 (concerning Italian legislation relating to shop opening times); Case C-387/93, Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero, 1995 E.C.R. I-4663, paras. 34–35 (concerning Italian customs legislation limiting tobacco sales to authorised retailers); Joined Cases C-69/93 & C-258/93, Punto Casa SpA v. Sindaco del Comune di Capena et Comune di Capena and Promozioni Polivalenti Venete Soc. Coop, 1994 E.C.R. I-2355, para. 15. (concerning Italian measures relating to Sunday retail closing hours). For further examples of “selling arrangements,” see Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 17 (relating to an Austrian prohibition on the door stop selling and collecting of silver jewelry); Case C-63/94, Groupement National des Négociants en Pommes de Terre de Belgique v. ITM Belgium SA and Vocarex SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-2467 (relating to Belgian measures which related to the sale of potatoes with a low profit margin); Case C-20/03, Criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden and Anthony De Jong, 2005 E.C.R. I-4133 (relating to measures by Belgium relating to the obtaining of prior authorisation with respect to the itinerant sales of subscriptions to periodicals); Case C-6/98, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben Media AG, supported by SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen GmbH, Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH, 1999 E.C.R. I-7599, paras. 48, 51 (relating to a rule concerning the net principle with respect to television broadcasters was held to concern “selling arrangement”); Case C-71/02, Herbert Karner Industrie-Auktionen GmbH v. Troostwijk GmbH, 2004 E.C.R. I-3025, para. 39 (concerning Austrian legislation prohibiting references in advertisements to the commercial origin of goods was similarly classified so as to fall beyond the clutches of Article 28 EC (now TFEU art. 34), and in holding that the national legislation was not subject to Article 28 EC scrutiny, the judgment respected the balance between the interests of freedom of expression and “each of the goals justifying restrictions on that freedom”).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Mickel sson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Id. at para. 28. Note, however, that the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Mickelsson concluded that that the Swedish measures relating to the use of watercraft be regarded as arrangements for use for products falling into the “selling arrangement” category “so long as it applies to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as it affects in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States, and is not product-related.” Id. at para. 114(2).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 58. Both national laws could be considered to be “measures having equivalent effect” and hence unlawful; subject to “justification pursuant to Article 30 EC [now TFEU art. 36] or … overriding public interest requirements.” Mickel sson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273, para. 28; see also Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 58 (having a similar application).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Case C-212/09, Comm'n v. Portuguese Republic, judgment of 10 November 2011 [hereinafter Comm'n v. Portugal].Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Id. at para. 65.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273, para. 44 (Advocate General Kokott's remarks).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Id. at para. 58. See also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34 (providing “quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States”).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 56. The Court also relied on the judgment of Commission v. Italy in Mickelsson, in which a restriction on the use of personal watercraft was likewise held to be a “measure having equivalent effect.” Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273, para. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Case C-292/92, Hünermund and others v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-6787.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Id. at paras. 19, 21, 22 (“It is not the purpose of a rule of professional conduct prohibiting pharmacists from advertising quasi-pharmaceutical products outside the pharmacy, drawn up by a professional association, to regulate trade in goods between Member States.”). See also Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, Hünermund, para. 29(c).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Joined cases C-402/92 & C-401/92, Criminal proceedings against Tankstation ‘t Heukske vof and J. B. E. Boermans, 1994 E.C.R. I-2199 [hereinafter Boermans case].Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Id. at para. 18.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹¹² Case C-391/92, Comm'n v. Hellenic Republic, 1995 E.C.R. I-1621, para. 20.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Case 418/83, Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco et al., 1996 E.C.R. I-2975, para. 24 (emphasis added). See also Joined Cases C-69/93 & C- 258/93, Punto Casa SpA v. Sindaco del Comune di Capena and Comune di Capena et al., 1994 E.C.R. I-2355, para. 12 (relating to Italian legislation on the closure of retail outlets on Sundays in which this issue was decided in the same manner).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Case C-387/93, Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero, 1995 E.C.R. I-4663, para. 44 (emphasis added). See also Case C-93/94, Groupement National des Négociants en Pommes de Terre de Belgique v. ITM Belgium SA and Vocarex SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-2467, para. 12 (noting how a Belgian rule prohibiting the sale of potatoes at a very low profit margin was held in to be a selling arrangement as it was “not by nature such as to prevent access [of goods] to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products”).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Case C-239/02, Douwe Egberts NV v. Westrom Pharma NV and Christophe Souranis, Carrying on Business Under the Commercial Name of “Etablissements FICS’ and Douwe Egberts NV v. FICS- World BVBA, 2004 E.C.R. I-7007, paras. 53–54.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 25. See also id. at para. 23 (“Such a provision constitutes a measure having equivalent effect only if the exclusion of the relevant marketing method affects products from other Member States more than it affects domestic products.”).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Id. at para. 25.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179 [hereinafter Leclerc-Siplec].Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Id. at paras. 22–24.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See TFEU art. 34 (replacing EC art. 28).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 55 (explaining his view that the measure fell outside the scope of Art 30 EC (now Art 34 TFEU) because “[t]he restriction affects only one form of advertising, although the most effective as far as mass consumer goods are concerned and advertisement of the goods themselves is not affected other than indirectly. As in the case of legislation restricting the opening hours of shops … the measure may result in a slight reduction in the total volume of sales of goods, including imports. But it cannot be said to have a substantial impact on access to the market. It therefore falls in my view outside the scope of Article 30.”)(emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹²² Id.Google Scholar

¹²³ Id.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Id. at para. 41.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See EC art. 30.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 41 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Id. at para. 42 (emphasis added). The opinion continues: “Once it is recognized that there is a need to limit the scope of Article 30 (now Art 34 TFEU) in order to prevent excessive interference in the regulatory powers of the Member States, a test based on the extent to which a measure hinders trade between Member States by restricting market access seems the most obvious solution.” Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Id. at para. 42.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Case C-141/07, Comm'n v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-6935 [hereinafter Comm'n v. Germany].Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Id. at para. 35 (noting that arrangements for sale of medicinal products held to make the supply of medical products to German hospitals more difficult and more costly for pharmacies established outside Germany).Google Scholar

¹³¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹³² Case C-141/07, Comm'n v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-6935, para. 43 (emphasis added). See also Case C-166/03, Comm'n v. France, 2004 E.C.R. I-6535, para. 15. Elsewhere there are express statements that even minor restrictions are prohibited and that the effects of a national measure do not need to be appreciable. See, e.g., Case C-309/02, Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v. Land Baden-Württembergpara, 2004 E.C.R. I-11763, para. 68 (rejecting a suggestion that the slight effect of rules or the availability of marketing of the products could remove the measures from the ambit of Article 34 TFEU); Case 177/82, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV, 1984 E.C.R. 1797, para. 14; Case C-212/06, Gov't of Communauté française and Gouvernement wallon v. Gouvernement flamand, 2008 E.C.R. I-1683, para. 51 (in the context of the free movement of persons).Google Scholar

¹³³ Case C-141/07, Comm'n v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-6935 (noting a substantial restriction to market access could include product rules and, for example, the requirement to alter the import in the host state).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See Snell, Jukka, The Notion of Market Access: A Concept or a Slogan?, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 437, 450, 455–60 (2010).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Joined Cases 177 & 178/82, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV, 1984 E.C.R. 1797, para. 13.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See, e.g., Barnard, supra note 27, at 290; Snell, supra note 134, at 437–72, 455–58; Eleanor Spaventa, Leaving Keck Behind? The Free Movement of Goods After the Rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 914, 921 (2009); Alina Tryfonidou, Further Steps on the Road to Convergence Among the Market Freedoms, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 36, 50 (2010); Pal Wenneras & Ketil Boe Moen, Selling Arrangements, Keeping Keck, 35 Eur. L. Rev 387, 399–400 (2010).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Case C-391/92, Comm'n v. Hellenic Republic, 1995 E.C.R. I-1621, para. 20.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Case 418/93, Semeraro Casa Uno Srl v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbuscoet al, 1996 E.C.R. I-2975, paras. 24, 28. See also Joined Cases C-69/93 & C-258/93, Punto Casa SpA v. Sindaco del Comune di Capena and Comune di Capena et al., 1994 E.C.R. I-2355, para. 12 (relating to Italian legislation on the closure of retail outlets on Sundays which this issue was decided in the same manner).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Semeraro, 1996 E.C.R. I-2975, para. 24 (noting the national law “cannot … be regarded as limiting access to the market”). See also Case C-239/02, Douwe Egberts NV v. Westrom Pharma NV and Christophe Souranis, Carrying on Business Under the Commercial Name of “Etablissements FIC” and Douwe Egberts NV v. FICS-World BVBA, 2004 E.C.R. I-7007, para. 53–54 (noting that an absolute prohibition on the advertising of characteristics of a product the national law was liable to impede the access of the imported foodstuff to the Belgian market, thus deserving scrutiny under Article 34 TFEU).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34 (“It is also apparent from settled case-law that Article 28 EC reflects the obligation to respect the principles of nondiscrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States as well as the principle of ensuring free access of community products to national markets.”).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Id. (vis-à-vis the use of the other principles of nondiscrimination and of mutual recognition in the mechanics of the application of Article 34 TFEU).Google Scholar

¹⁴² Wenneras & Moen, supra note 136, at 399–400.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Id. at 387. See also Barnard, supra note 27; Thomas Horsley, Anyone for Keck? 46 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 2001 (2009); Spaventa, supra note 136, at 921; Peter Pecho, Good-Bye Keck?: A Comment on the Remarkable Judgment in Commission v. Italy, C-110/05, 36 Legal Issues Econ. Integration 257 (2009); Snell, supra note 134, 455–60; Stephen Weatherill, Free Movement of Goods, 58 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 985, 987 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 41 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Id. (opinion of Advocate General Jacobs) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 37 (emphasis added). See also Wenneras & Moen, supra note 136, at 398 (2010) (alluding to this aspect).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ For example, nondiscrimination and mutual recognition.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ See also EC art. 28 (replaced by TFEU art. 34).Google Scholar

¹⁵² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Although facially some measures would be found unlawful because of their effects on trade, the Court may not hold them unlawful if those measures can be justified. In the context of goods, justification of national measures is accomplished either through the application of Article 36 TFEU or through the concept of the mandatory requirement. Article 36 TFEU provides: “The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 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.” Mandatory requirements introduced and identified in Rewe-Zentral as “relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer.” Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ In Joh. Eggers Sohn & Co. v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen, for example, the national law was held a restriction which “merely consolidates the partitioning of the markets.” Case 13/78, Joh. Eggers Sohn & Co. v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen, 1978 E.C.R. 1935. The same rationale was applied in Cullet, 1985 E.C.R. 305; Case 4–75, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eGmbH v. Landwirtschaftskammer, 1975 E.C.R. 843; Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Note the Dassonville formula with respect to defining the “measures having an equivalent effect” for Article 34 TFEU purposes. Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837. See also Case C-17/93, Criminal proceedings against J.J.J. Van der Veldt, 1994 E.C.R. I-3537 [hereinafter Van der Veldt]; Joined Cases C-158/04 & C-159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135 [hereinafter Alfa Vita]; Comm'n v. Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-6935; Case C-192/01, Comm'n v. Denmark, 2003 E.C.R. I-9693 [hereinafter Comm'n v. Denmark].Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ See Case C-387/99, Comm'n v. Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751 [hereinafter German Vitamins Case]; Case C-150/00, Comm'n v. Austria, 2004 E.C.R. I-3887 [hereinafter Austrian Vitamins Case]; Case C-389/96, Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1998 E.C.R. I-4473; Case C-297/05, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2007 E.C.R. I-7467; Alfa Vita, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ See Cullet, 1985 E.C.R. 305; Comm'n v. Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-6935; Case 153/78, Comm'n v. Germany, 1979 E.C.R. 2555; Case 68–76, Comm'n v. France, 1977 E.C.R. 515; Criminal proceedings against Herbert Gilli and Paul Andres, 1980 E.C.R. 2071; Criminal proceedings against Fabriek voor Hoogwaardige Voedingsprodukten Kelderman BV, 1981 E.C.R. 527.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Note the reference to the position occupied by these two principles in the jurisprudence relating to the free movement of goods in Commission v. Italy. See Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ See Case 20/64, SARL Albatros v. Société des pétroles et des combustibles liquides (Sopéco), 1965 E.C.R. 29. In the first instance, subdivisions of direct and indirect discrimination were identified and developed by the Court of Justice. The terminology used was distinctly and indistinctly applicable. The classification, at least in the initial jurisprudence, had important consequences for the process of the justification of such measures. See Commission Directive 70/50 1969 O.J. (L 13) 29 (EC). Note the recent statement by the Court that “in order to provide the referring court with a useful answer, the questions referred must be examined from the perspective of Article 12 EC, [now Article 18 TFEU] which enshrines the general principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality.” Case C-382/08, Neukirchinger v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen, judgment of 25 January 2011 [hereinafter Neukirchinger]. For the recourse to that principle, see Case C-531/07, Fachverband der Buch-und Medienwirtschaft v. LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH, 2009 E.C.R. I-3717 [hereinafter Fachverband].Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ See, e.g., German Vitamins Case, 2004 E.C.R. I-3751; Comm'n v. Denmark, 2003 E.C.R. I-9693; Van der Veldt, 1994 E.C.R. I-3537; Case C- 457/05, Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v. Diageo Deutschland GmbH, 2007 E.C.R. I-8075; Case C-358/95, Morellato v. Unità sanitaria locale (USL) n. 11 di Pordenone, 1997 E.C.R. I-1431; Austrian Vitamins Case, supra note 156; Rewe-Zentral AG, supra note 5; Criminal proceedings against Fabriek voor Hoogwaardige Voedingsprodukten Kelderman BV, 1981 E.C.R. 527; Georg Schwarz v. Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, 2005 E.C.R. I-10139.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Given the internal market, presumably the same arguments could be applied in relation to applications of the Treaty provisions relating to: goods, TFEU art. 34; workers, TFEU art. 45; services, TFEU art. 56; establishment, TFEU art. 49; and capital, TFEU art. 63. The internal market “shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.” TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 26(2).Google Scholar

¹⁶² See Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Wenneras, supra note 136, at 387.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Wenneras, supra note 136, at 387.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ See Mithouard, Keck and, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097; see also Fachverband, 2009 E.C.R. I-3717.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Barnard, Catherine, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms 140 (3d ed. 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁷² Such a view would strike an accord with the observation that the two judgments represent “a departure from orthodox jurisprudence and the beginning of a universal and strict market access era.” Wenneras, supra note 136, at 387.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ “The Court appears to have adopted a new category of measure which is neither a product requirement nor a certain selling arrangement: measures which hinder ‘access of products originating in other Member States to the market of a Member State.'” Barnard, supra note 171, at 140.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Case C-108/09, judgment of 2 December 2010.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Note that, with respect to the “selling arrangement,” the Court held that “[a]s regards the first condition, it is clear that the legislation applies to all relevant traders involved in selling contact lenses, which means that that condition is satisfied.” Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Article 34 TFEU was applied on this basis. The onus was then on the state to justify the national measure. In this instance, it failed to do so on account of proportionality. Id. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Wenneras, supra note 136, at 398.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Id. at 399.Google Scholar

¹⁸² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 ECR I-179 (as stated by Advocate General Jacobs).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Note particularly the respect shown for these principles in Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ But see Wenneras, supra note 136, at 387.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ See TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ See id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See id. at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ See id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁹² See id. at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ See id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ See id. at art. 49.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Id. (emphasis added). With respect to the free movement of capital, “all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.” Id. at art. 63 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ The Court of Justice has further equated the nomenclature of restriction with that of obstacle.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 45, 49, 56, 63.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ See TFEU, supra note 1.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ See id. at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

²⁰² See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

²⁰³ See id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ Case C-389/05, Comm'n v. France, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337 [hereinafter Bovine Case].Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49; see also Case C-433/04, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2006 E.C.R. I-10653; Case C-208/05, ITC Innovative Tech. Ctr. GmbH v. Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2007 E.C.R. I-181; Case C-219/08, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2009 E.C.R. I-9213 [hereinafter Belgian Posting Case].Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Bovine Case, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337 (emphasis added). See also C-442/02, CaixaBank France v. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961 [hereinafter CaixaBank]; Case C-79/01, Payroll Data Servs. Srl, ADP Europe SA & ADP GSI SA, 2002 E.C.R. I-8923 [hereinafter Payroll]; Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd., 2003 E.C.R. I-10155 [hereinafter Kamer].Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Bovine Case, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Id. Google Scholar

²¹¹ See Comm'n v. France, 1986 E.C.R. 1475.Google Scholar

²¹² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

²¹³ Id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Id. at art. 49.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Id. at art. 45.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

²¹⁹ In this instance, national rules related to the occupation of doctor or dental practitioner and also concerned the free movement rights relating to establishment and services, see id. at arts. 49, 56.Google Scholar

²²⁰ Comm'n v. France, 1986 E.C.R. 1475 (emphasis added). The Court continued: “That is not the case where the restrictions are liable to create discrimination against practitioners established in other Member States or raise obstacles to access” (emphasis added). Id. With respect to the worker, Regina v. Stanislaus Pieck held that “the only restriction which Article 48 of the Treaty [EC, now Article 45 TFEU] lays down concerning freedom of movement in the territory of Member States is that of limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” Case 157/79, Regina v. Stanislaus Pieck, 1980 E.C.R. 2171, para. 9 [hereinafter Stanislaus Pieck].Google Scholar

²²¹ Case C-355/98, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2000 E.C.R. I-1221, para. 24 (emphasis added). Also of “freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.” Id. Google Scholar

²²² Case C-283/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2001 E.C.R. I-4363, para. 9 [hereinafter Italian Private Security Case] (emphasis added). Also of the “freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.” Id. Google Scholar

²²³ Case C-232/01, Criminal proceedings against Hans van Lent, 2003 E.C.R. I-11525, para. 22.Google Scholar

²²⁴ Case C-162/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2001 E.C.R. I-541, para. 20.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Kamer, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, para. 27 (“Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the WFBV, the subscribed capital of a formally foreign company must be at least equal to the minimum amount required of Netherlands limited companies by Article 2:178 of the Burgerlijke Wetboek (Netherlands Civil Code, ‘the BW'), which was EUR 18 000 on 1 September 2000 (Staatsblad 2000, N 322). The paid-up share capital must be at least equal to the minimum capital (Article 4(2) of the WFBV, referring back to Article 2:178 of the BW).”).Google Scholar

²²⁶ Id. at para. 104.Google Scholar

²²⁷ See Kamer, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, para. 104. See also Joined Cases C-151/04 & C-152/04, Criminal proceedings against Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA & Durré, 2005 E.C.R. I-11203, paras. 5, 6 [hereinafter Nadin].Google Scholar

²²⁸ Case C-3/87, The Queen v. Ministry of Agric., Fisheries & Food, ex parte Agegate Ltd., 1989 E.C.R. 4459, para. 41.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Case 118/75, Watson & Belmann, 1976 E.C.R. 1185, para. 11 [hereinafter Watson]. “Articles 52 [now Article 49 TFEU] and 59 [now Article 56 TFEU] provide that restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the Community shall be abolished.” Id. See also Case C-243/01, Piergiorgio Gambelli & Others, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031, paras. 46, 54 [hereinafter Piergiorgio]. With respect to services, see Case 62/79, SA Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, Coditel, & Others v. Ciné Vog Films & Others, 1980 E.C.R. 881, para. 15; Case C-272/94, Criminal proceedings against Michel Guiot and Climatec SA, 1996 E.C.R. I-1905, para. 10 [hereinafter Guiot].Google Scholar

²³⁰ Watson, 1976 E.C.R. 1185.Google Scholar

²³¹ Id. (emphasis added). See also Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave & L.J.N. Koch v. Ass'n Union Cycliste Int'l, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie & Federación Española Ciclismo, 1974 E.C.R. 1405 [hereinafter Walrave] (confirming that Article 56 TFEU “makes no distinction between the source of the restrictions to be abolished”) (emphasis added). It has been held that “the principle of freedom to provide services established in Article 59 of the Treaty, [now Art 56 TFEU] which is one of its fundamental principles, includes the freedom for the recipients of services to go to another Member State in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions.” Case C-348/96, Criminal proceedings against Donatella Calfa, 1999 E.C.R. I-11 [hereinafter Calfa] (emphasis added). See also Case 186/87, Cowan v. Trésor Public, 1989 E.C.R. 195.Google Scholar

²³² It also ascribed the nomenclature of obstacle to free movement. For example, in Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others it was held that “[w]here a company established in a Member State … pursues the activity of collecting bets through the intermediary of an organisation of agencies established in another Member State … any restrictions on the activities of those agencies constitute obstacles to the freedom of establishment.” Piergiorgio, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²³³ Italian Private Security Case, 2001 E.C.R. I-4363, para. 22 (emphasis added). The Dutch restriction on multi-disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and accountants was justifiable; it was thus not contrary the free movement provisions of services and establishment. Case C-309/99, J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh & Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, 2002 E.C.R. I-1577, para. 122.Google Scholar

²³⁴ This is also a profession recognised in Germany. See Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner, 2002 E.C.R. I-6515, para. 40 [hereinafter Deutsche Paracelsus].Google Scholar

²³⁵ Bovine Case, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337. The French legislation was held to be “a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.” Id. See also CaixaBank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961; Payroll, 2002 E.C.R. I-8923 (respecting the rights of establishment). In the context of services, see Watson, 1976 E.C.R. 1185. In the context of the worker, it has, for example, been held that “[t]he only restriction which Article 48 [now 45 TFEU] of the Treaty lays down concerning freedom of movement in the territory of Member States is that of limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” Stanislaus Pieck, 1980 E.C.R. 2171, para. 9.Google Scholar

²³⁶ Bovine Case, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337, para. 55–56.Google Scholar

²³⁷ See Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional & Bwin Int'l Ltd. v. Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, 2009 E.C.R. I-7633, paras. 52–53 [hereinafter Liga]. The Portuguese rule was justified. Id. at para. 72.Google Scholar

²³⁸ Guiot, 1996 E.C.R. I-1905, para. 13.Google Scholar

²³⁹ See Case C-410/96, Criminal proceedings against André Ambry, 1998 E.C.R. I-7875 (“[R]ules such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which require financial institutions situated in another Member State to conclude an additional agreement, must be held to constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services laid down by Article 59 [now Article 56 TFEU] of the Treaty.” (emphasis added)). Rules “requiring professional or semi-professional athletes or persons aspiring to take part in a professional or semi-professional activity to have been authorised or selected by their federation in order to be able to participate in a high-level international sports competition” were held not of themselves a restriction on the freedom to provide services. Joined cases C-51/96 & C-191/97, Deliège v. Ligue francoph one de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo & François Pacquée, 2000 E.C.R. I-2549, para. 69.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ See Case C-405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen v. Gourmet Int'l Products AB, 2001 E.C.R. I-1795, para. 39 [hereinafter Gourmet Int'l.].Google Scholar

²⁴¹ See Case C-290/04, FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v. Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel, 2006 E.C.R. I-9461, para. 56. It was an obstacle that was justified “in order to ensure the proper functioning of the procedure for taxation at source.” Id. at para. 59.Google Scholar

²⁴² Case C-429/02, Bacardi France SAS v. Télévision française 1 SA, Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA & Girosport SARL, 2004 E.C.R. I-6613 (emphasis added). The French rules were regarded as proportionate. Id. Google Scholar

²⁴³ See Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v. Republik Österreich, 1999 E.C.R. I-3099.Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ See Case C-464/98, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Friedrich Stefan and Republik Österreich, 2001 E.C.R. I-173, para. 19.Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ Comm'n v. Portugal, judgment of 10 November 2011, para. 81.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Id. Google Scholar

²⁴⁷ The court's decision was on the basis that such was discriminatory. Case C-250/08, Comm'n v. Belgium, judgment of 1 December 2011, paras. 62, 82.Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ See TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ Id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ Id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

²⁵¹ See TFEU, supra note 1.Google Scholar

²⁵² For example, in the context of justification, “according to the case-law of the Court it is a further condition that, among other things, the restriction which that obstacle places on the freedom of movement of workers does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued.” Case C-285/01, Burbaud v. Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité, 2003 E.C.R. I-8219 [hereinafter Burbaud] (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁵³ Case C-114/97, Comm'n v. Spain, 1998 E.C.R. I-6717.Google Scholar

²⁵⁴ See id. Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ Watson, 1976 E.C.R. 1185. See also Case C-57/95, French Republic v. Comm'n, 1997 E.C.R. I-1627.Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ The judgment of Criminal proceedings against Michel Choquet was phrased in similar terminology. Case 16/78, Criminal proceedings against Michel Choquet, 1978 E.C.R. 2293. In the context of Treaty rights with respect to the worker, services and establishment, German measures could be “obstacles to the recognition of a driving licence issued by another Member State [where they were] are not in fact in due proportion to the requirements for the safety of highway traffic.” Id. at para. 8 (emphasis added). In the context of the deportation of a worker, a Member State was “not justified in imposing a penalty so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the free movement of persons.” Stanislaus Pieck, 1980 E.C.R. 2171 (emphasis added). See also Bovine Case, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337; CaixaBank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961; Payroll, 2002 E.C.R. I-8923.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ Walrave, 1974 E.C.R. 1405 (emphasis added). Note also a recent and general statement to this effect in Case C-438/05, Int'l Transp. Workers Fed'n & Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP & OÜ Viking Line Eesti, 2007 E.C.R. I-10779. See also, with respect to the worker, Case 53/81, D.M. Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, 1982 E.C.R. 1035.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ Walrave, 1974 E.C.R. 1405. The reference to the same was made in Watson, 1976 E.C.R. 1185.Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ Case C-370/90, The Queen v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal & Surinder Singh, ex parte Sec. of State for Home Dep't, 1992 E.C.R. I-4265.Google Scholar

²⁶¹ Id. at para. 23 (concerning restrictive national laws relating to the entry and residence of the spouse of the worker. Provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom. See Case C-464/02, Comm'n v. Denmark, 2005 E.C.R. I-7929 [hereinafter Danish Motor Vehicles Case]; Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Bosman; and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921, para. 96 [hereinafter Bosman Case].Google Scholar

²⁶² Danish Motor Vehicles Case, 2005 E.C.R. I-7929 (“Legislation which relates to the conditions in which an economic activity is pursued may constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers.” (emphasis added)). The judgment related to Danish legislation concerning the taxation of motor vehicles. See Danish Motor Vehicles Case, 2005 E.C.R. I-7929, paras. 35, 37.Google Scholar

²⁶³ Case C-344/95, Comm'n v. Belgium, 1997 E.C.R. I-1035, para. 6 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁶⁴ See Case C-24/97, Comm'n v. Germany, 1998 E.C.R. I-2133 [hereinafter German Residency Case]; see also Case C-265/88, Criminal proceedings against Lothar Messner, 1989 E.C.R. 4209. That the Treaty provision with respect to the worker is concerned with the prohibitions of restrictions on such freedom is stated by implication in Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v. Salvatore Ugliola, in which it was held that Article 48 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) permits “no reservations other than the restriction set out in [Article 48] paragraph (3) concerning the public policy, public security and public health.” Case 15–69, Württembergische Milchverwertung-Südmilch AG v. Salvatore Ugliola, 1969 E.C.R. 363 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁶⁵ Case C-350/96, Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, 1998 E.C.R. I-2521.Google Scholar

²⁶⁶ Id. Restrictions were discriminatory. Id. at para. 21.Google Scholar

²⁶⁷ See Case C-109/04, Kranemann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2005 E.C.R. I-2421, para. 29. (holding that the German requirements were an obstacle to the free movement of workers). Id.Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ Case C-204/90, Bachmann v. Belgium, 1992 E.C.R. I-249.Google Scholar

²⁶⁹ See id. In addition, it was also an obstacle to the free movement of services. Id. at paras. 13, 31.Google Scholar

²⁷⁰ See Case C-385/00, F.W.L. de Groot v. Staatssecretaris van Financien, 2002 E.C.R. I-11819, para. 95.Google Scholar

²⁷¹ See Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, 1999 E.C.R. I-7289. Such were restrictions held to be “obstacle[s] to the freedom to provide services.” Id. at para. 27 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁷² See Case C-298/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I-3129, para. 37 [hereinafter Italian Architect Case]. This obligation “gives rise to additional obstacles for all architects applying for recognition of their qualifications.” Id. Note in addition that the Italian rule was also described by the Court as “an impediment to the freedom of establishment and to the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 59 of the Treaty.” Id. The judgment was concerned with restrictions on the freedoms of establishment and services. Id. at paras. 3, 5.Google Scholar

²⁷³ Case C-76/05, Schwarz v. Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach, 2007 E.C.R. I-6849.Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

²⁷⁵ See id. at art. 49.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ See Case C-493/99, Comm'n v. Germany, 2001 E.C.R. I-8163, para. 18 (“The requirement of a permanent establishment is the very negation of the fundamental freedom to provide services in that it results in depriving Article 59 [now Article 56 TFEU] of the Treaty of all effectiveness, a provision whose very purpose is to abolish restrictions on the freedom to provide services of persons who are not established in the State in which their services are to be provided.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

²⁷⁷ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

²⁷⁸ Case C-484/93, Svensson v. Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme, 1995 E.C.R. I-3955, para. 10.Google Scholar

²⁷⁹ Case C-386/04, Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer v. Finanzamt München für Körperschaften, 2006 E.C.R. I-8203, |para. 27.Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ Piergiorgio, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031. See also Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. B.G.M. Verkooijen, in which Dutch measures restricted migrant nationals residing in Holland from investing in foreign companies was held to be a restriction on capital movements. Case C-35/98, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. B.G.M. Verkooijen, 2000 E.C.R. I-4071 [hereinafter B.G.M. Verkooijen].Google Scholar

²⁸¹ Piergiorgio, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031 (emphasis added). Note also Commissi on v. Belgium in which it was held that “[t]he conditions laid down for the registration of aircraft must … not discriminate on grounds of nationality or form an obstacle to the exercise of that freedom.” Case C-203/98, Comm'n v. Belgium, 1999 E.C.R. I-4899 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁸² Calfa, 1999 E.C.R. I-11 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

²⁸³ B.G.M. Verkooijen 2000 E.C.R. I-4071.Google Scholar

²⁸⁴ See TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 49, 56.Google Scholar

²⁸⁵ See, e.g., Case C-114/97, Comm'n v. Spain, 1998 E.C.R. I-6717 (holding that Spanish nationality conditions were “restrictions on freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and freedom of movement for workers” and were therefore obstacles to such rights).Google Scholar

²⁸⁶ See Italian Architect Case, 2002 E.C.R. I-3129, paras. 2, 5, 37 (respecting the variable classification of national measures as impediment, restriction, and obstacle to the free movement right). See also Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Hellenic Republic, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 74 (referencing examples of obstacles and restrictions).Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32 [hereinafter Dieter Kraus]. See Case C-234/03, Contse SA and Others v. Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria, 2005 E.C.R. 1–9315, para. 25 [hereinafter Contse SA]; Case C-131/01, Comm'n v. Italy, 2003 E.C.R. 1–1659, para. 26 [hereinafter Italian Patents Case]; Case C-58/98, Josef Corsten, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 33 [hereinafter Corsten].Google Scholar

²⁸⁸ See Case C-275/92, Her Majesty's Customs & Excise v. Schindler, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039, para. 43 [hereinafter Her Majesty's Customs]; Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Calafiori, 2005 E.C.R. I-3875, para. 31 [hereinafter Servizi]; Case C-389/95, Siegfried Klattner v. Elliniko Dimosio, 1997 E.C.R. I-2719, para. 16, 19.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ See Case C-246/00, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2003 E.C.R. I-7485, para. 66; Case C-465/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2007 E.C.R. I-11091, para. 109 [hereinafter Italian Security Guard Case]; Contse SA, 2005 E.C.R. 1–9315, para. 25; Case C-330/03, Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v. Administración del Estado, 2006 E.C.R. I-801, para. 25.Google Scholar

²⁹⁰ See Case C-76/90, Manfred Säger v. Dennemeyer & Co. Ltd., 1991 E.C.R. I-4221, para. 12 [hereinafter Säger]; Joined Cases C-369/96 & C-376/96, Criminal proceedings against Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL and Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL, 1999 E.C.R. I-8453, para. 33 [hereinafter Arblade]; Joined Cases C-430/99 & C-431/99, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, district Rotterdam v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 2002 E.C.R. I-5235, para. 38 [hereinafter Douane].Google Scholar

²⁹¹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 45, 49.Google Scholar

²⁹² See id. at art. 56.Google Scholar

²⁹³ See id. at art. 63.Google Scholar

²⁹⁴ Case C-299/02, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-9761, para. 15 [hereinafter Netherlands Shipping Case] (emphasis added) (“[E]ven though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality.”). See also Dieter Kraus, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 32; Säger, 1991 E.C.R. I-4221, para. 12.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; Burbaud, 2003 E.C.R. I-8219, para. 4.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56; Italian Patents Case, 2003 E.C.R. 1–1659, para. 26. See also Corsten, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 33; Case C-43/93, Vander Elst v. Office des Migrations Internationales, 1994 E.C.R. I-3803, para. 14 [hereinafter Vander Elst]; Guiot, 1996 E.C.R. I-1905, para. 10; Case C-3/95, Reisebüro Broede v. Sandker, 1996 E.C.R. I-6511, para. 25 [hereinafter Reisebüro]; Case C-222/95, Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary, 1997 E.C.R. I-3899, para. 18; Arblade, 1999 E.C.R. I-8453, para. 33.Google Scholar

²⁹⁷ Dieter Kraus, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663. In issue here were the Treaty free movement rights relating to the worker and to establishment. Id. Google Scholar

²⁹⁸ Netherlands Shipping Case, 2004 E.C.R. I-9761, para. 20.Google Scholar

²⁹⁹ Burbaud, 2003 E.C.R. I-8219.Google Scholar

³⁰⁰ Id. at para. 95.Google Scholar

³⁰¹ Id. Google Scholar

³⁰² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁰³ Case C-478/01, Comm'n v. Luxembourg, 2003 E.C.R. I-2351, para. 18 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France S. Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop. arl and Others, 1998 E.C.R. I-03949 (holding that there was no restriction on the freedom to provide maritime transport services when considering the fees imposed by Italy for mooring services).Google Scholar

³⁰⁴ Commission v. Luxembourg, 2003 E.C.R. I-2351, para. 18.Google Scholar

³⁰⁵ Id.; see also Corsten, 2000 E.C.R. I-7919, para. 33; Italian Patents Case, 2003 E.C.R. 1–1659, para. 42.Google Scholar

³⁰⁶ See Säger, 1991 E.C.R. I-4221, para. 14 (holding that there was a restriction on the right to supply services).Google Scholar

³⁰⁷ Her Majesty's Customs, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039, paras. 43, 59 (holding the measures were an obstacle to the free movement of services).Google Scholar

³⁰⁸ Case C-43/93, Raymond Vander Elst v. Office des Migrations Internationales, 1994 E.C.R. I-3803, para. 14 (holding the measures were a restriction on the free movement right).Google Scholar

³⁰⁹ Case C-398/95, Syndesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion v. Ypourgos Ergasias, 1997 E.C.R. I-3091, paras. 16, 19 [hereinafter Syndesmos Case] (finding both a restriction and barrier to the free movement right).Google Scholar

³¹⁰ Case C-490/04, Comm'n v. Germany, 2007 E.C.R. I-6095, para. 68 (constituting a restriction on the free movement of services).Google Scholar

³¹¹ Case C-398/95, Syndesmos Case, paras. 16, 19 (finding that the national law provided a barrier to free movement).Google Scholar

³¹² Case C-134/03, Vicacom Outdoor SrL v. Giotto Immobilier SARL, 2005 E.C.R. I-1167 para. 39. In Viacom, the issue was whether a municipal tax constituted an impediment to freedom to provide services contrary to TFEU art. 56, para. 33. The Italian law was held to be lawful.Google Scholar

³¹³ Bosman Case, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921, para. 103 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³¹⁴ Nadin, 2005 E.C.R. I-11203, para. 36.Google Scholar

³¹⁵ See Case C-298/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I-3129, para. 37 (relating to both the rights of services and establishment).Google Scholar

³¹⁶ Case C-514/03, Comm'n v. Spain, 2006 E.C.R. I-963, para. 48 (finding the provisions made the formation of secondary establishments or subsidiaries in Spain more onerous and dissuaded foreign private security undertakings from offering their services within the Spanish market).Google Scholar

³¹⁷ Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani Läärä v. Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 29.Google Scholar

³¹⁸ Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA v. To Me Group Advertising Media, 2008 E.C.R. I-5785, para. 32 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Case C-96/08, CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central v. Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenrzési Hivatal (APEH) Hatósági Fosztály, judgment of 15 April 2010, para. 19; Case C-157/07 Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v. Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH 2008 E.C.R. I-8061, para. 30; Case C-439/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I305, para. 22; Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Giuseppe Calafiori, 2006 E.C.R. I-2941, para. 31; Case C-65/05, Comm'n v. Greece, 2006 E.C.R. I-10341, para. 48; Case C-248/06, Comm'n v. Spain, 2008 ECR I-47, para. 21. See also CaixaBank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 12; C-518/06, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-3491, para. 62.Google Scholar

³¹⁹ All such measures “must be considered to be restrictions” on the Treaty free movement rights of services and establishment. Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner, 2002 E.C.R. I-6515, para. 38. In the context of the right of establishment, see Case C-168/91, Christos Konstantinidis v. Stadt Altensteig, 1993 E.C.R. I-1191, para. 15. In the context of the freedom to provide services, see Case C-205/99, Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) v. Administración General del Estado, 2001 E.C.R. I-1271, para. 21; Case C-429/02, Bacardi France SAS v. Télévision française, 1 SA (TF1), C-429/02 Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA and Girosport SARL, 2004 E.C.R. I-6613, para. 31; Case C-262/02, Comm'n v. France, 2004 E.C.R. I-6569, paras 27–29; Arblade, 1999 E.C.R. I-8453, para. 33; Case C-294/00 Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner 2002 E.C.R. I-6515, para. 38. See also Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v. Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, 2009 E.C.R. I-7633, para. 51; Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Giuseppe Calafiori, 2006 E.C.R. I-2941 para. 33; Case C-298/05, Columbus Container Services, 2007 E.C.R. I-10451, para. 33.Google Scholar

³²⁰ The French measure rendered a restriction which was liable to “prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom.” CaixaBank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 11.Google Scholar

³²¹ Case C-153/02, Valentina Neri v. European School of Economics (ESE Insight World Educ. Sys. Ltd), 2003 E.C.R. I-13555, para. 44 (finding that the restriction “is likely to deter students from attending these courses and thus seriously hinder the pursuit by ESE of its economic activity in that Member State” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

³²² Case C-79/01, Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA, 2002 E.C.R. I-8923, para. 26.Google Scholar

³²³ Case C-439/99, Comm'n v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I-305, para. 22.Google Scholar

³²⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56. See also Case C-49/98 Finalarte Sociedade de Construção Civil Ld. 2001 E.C.R. I-7831, para. 30 (relating to German measures imposing an obligation on undertakings in the construction sector supplying a service to apply the system of paid leave applicable in the host Member State to workers deployed for that purpose). A national rule which involved the services provider in expense and additional administrative and economic burdens would fall into this category. See, e.g., Case C-165/98, Criminal proceedings against André Mazzoleni and Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL, as the Party Civilly Liable, Third Parties: Eric Guillaume and Others 2001 E.C.R. I-2189, para. 24 (concerning Belgian measures requiring an undertaking established in another Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national rules of that State).Google Scholar

³²⁵ Douane, 2002 E.C.R. I-5235, para. 38.Google Scholar

³²⁶ Id. at para. 32 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³²⁷ Case C-219/08 Comm'n v. Belgium, 2009 E.C.R. I-9213, para. 13 (describing the measures as being “liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous”).Google Scholar

³²⁸ Case C-393/05, Joined opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 2007 E.C.R. I-10195, paras. 31–32 (deciding on the grounds that the national law “renders impossible, in Austria, the provision of the services in question by private bodies established only in other Member States”). A similar French requirement in relation to biomedical analysis laboratories was held unlawful on the same basis. See Case C-496/01, Comm'n v. France, 2004 E.C.R. 1–2351, para. 65.Google Scholar

³²⁹ Case C-205/99, Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others v. Administración General del Estado, 2001 E.C.R. I-1271, para. 22.Google Scholar

³³⁰ Reisebüro, 1996 E.C.R. I-6511, paras. 25–26.Google Scholar

³³¹ Guiot, 1996 E.C.R. I-1905, para. 10.Google Scholar

³³² Vander Elst, 1994 E.C.R. I-3803, para. 14.Google Scholar

³³³ Säger, 1991 E.C.R. I-4221, para 12. See also Arblade, 1999 E.C.R. I-8453, para. 33.Google Scholar

³³⁴ Case C-60/03, Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG v. José Filipe Pereira Félix, 2004 E.C.R. I-9553, para 31 (“To the extent that it involves expenses and additional administrative and economic burdens.”). See also Case C-164/99, Portugaia Construções, 2002 E.C.R. I-787, para. 18 (making a similar comment with respect to collective agreements and minimum wages in Germany); Case C-404/05 Comm'n v. Germany, 2007 E.C.R. I-10239, para. 30.Google Scholar

³³⁵ Joined Cases C-372/09 & C-373/09, Josep Peñarroja Fa, judgment of 17 March 2011, para. 50 (holding a restriction on the freedom to supply services).Google Scholar

³³⁶ Case C-9/11, Waypoint Aviation SA v. État belge-SPF Finances, judgment of 13 October 2011, para. 22.Google Scholar

³³⁷ Case C-246/00, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2003 E.C.R. I-7485, para. 66.Google Scholar

³³⁸ Case C-465/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2007 E.C.R. I-11091, para. 109 (holding likely to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services).Google Scholar

³³⁹ Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I-4165, para. 39; Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 E.C.R. I-1459 para. 34; Case C-108/96, Criminal proceedings against Dennis Mac Quen, SA, 2001 E.C.R. I-837, para. 26; Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner, 2002 E.C.R. I-6515, para. 39; Kamer, 2003 E.C.R. I-10155, para. 133; Contse SA, 2005 E.C.R. I-9315, para. 25; Case C-234/03 Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v. Administración del Estado, 2005 E.C.R. I-9315, para. 25; Case C-514/03, Comm'n v. Spain, 2006 E.C.R. I-963, para. 26; Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Greece, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 51; Case C-152/05, Comm'n v. Germany, 2008 E.C.R. I-00039, para. 26; Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner, 2002 E.C.R. I-6515, paras. 39–40.Google Scholar

³⁴⁰ Case C-400/08, Comm'n v. Spain, judgment of 24 March 2011, para. 70 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁴¹ Case C-148/10, DHL International NV v. Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie, judgment of 13 October 2011, para. 63 (applying such terminology to hold that the imposition of a mandatory complaints procedure on postal services providers did not “hinder or render less attractive the exercise by Union nationals of the freedom of establishment that is guaranteed by the Treaty”).Google Scholar

³⁴² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

³⁴³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

³⁴⁴ Case C-253/09, Comm'n v. Hungary, judgment of 1 December 2011, para. 69.Google Scholar

³⁴⁵ Note with respect to the worker, the Treaty omission of the terminology of restriction has been rectified by jurisprudence such as Case 96/85, Comm'n v. France, 1986 E.C.R. 1475, para. 11. The adjective is used interchangeably with obstacle in the jurisprudence relating to the worker.Google Scholar

³⁴⁶ For worker, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

³⁴⁷ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁴⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

³⁴⁹ For worker, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

³⁵⁰ For services, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁵¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

³⁵² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

³⁵³ Case 222/86, Union nationale des entraîneurs et cadres techniques professionnels du football (Unectef) v. Georges Heylens, 1987 E.C.R. 4097 [hereinafter Unectef].Google Scholar

³⁵⁴ Member States’ courts are required to give reasons for judgments when judicially reviewing a decision about the equivalence of diplomas held by migrant nationals.Google Scholar

³⁵⁵ Unectef, 1987 E.C.R. 4097, para. 14 (emphasis added). It was an approach that was arguably confirmed in the Bosman judgment in the context of rendering nationality clauses in football unlawful. Bosman Case, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921, para. 129.Google Scholar

³⁵⁶ Relating to instances wherein the employer was established in another Member State.Google Scholar

³⁵⁷ Nadin, 2005 E.C.R. I-11203, para. 39.Google Scholar

³⁵⁸ Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

³⁵⁹ Id. at para. 37.Google Scholar

³⁶⁰ Case C-586/08, Angelo Rubino v. Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca, 2009 ECR I-12013, para. 34 (“In particular, that, in the context of a selection procedure such as that leading to registration as a holder of the NAQ, qualifications obtained in other Member States are accorded their proper value and are duly taken into account.”) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁶¹ In the context of the free movement of services and establishment, see Case C-389/05, Comm'n v. France, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337, para. 53 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁶² This concerns Austrian provisions relating to compensation on termination of employment upon moving to commence employment in another Member State. The operation of the principle is noted in the recent judgment of Krzysztof Peśla v. Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to underpin the rationale for the direct entry of the migrant to the legal profession of the host state. See Case C-345/08, Krzysztof Peśla v. Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2009 E.C.R. I-11677, para. 53 (holding that “[i]f such an obligation did not exist, the fact of not having the diploma normally required by nationals of the host Member State could of itself constitute a decisive obstacle to access to the legal professions in that Member State” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

³⁶³ See also Bosman Case where Belgian transfer rules, effective to prevent a migrant worker moving to play for a French club, constituted an obstacle to that freedom. Bosman Case, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921, para. 96. See also Case C-10/90, Maria Masgio v. Bundesknappschaft, E.C.R. I-1119, para. 18; Case C-228/88, Giovanni Bronzino v. Kindergeldkasse, 1990 E.C.R. I-531; Case C-12/89, Gatto v. Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit, 1990 E.C.R. I-557, para. 2.Google Scholar

³⁶⁴ Case C-190/98 2000 E.C.R. I-00493, para. 23 (emphasis added). “Provisions which, even if they are applicable without distinction, preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom [providing they] ‘affect access of workers to the labour market.'” Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁶⁵ Case C-464/02, Comm'n v. Denmark, 2005 E.C.R. I-07929, para. 37 (“Legislation which relates to the conditions in which an economic activity is pursued may constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

³⁶⁶ Case C-465/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2007 E.C.R. I-11091, para. 46 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁶⁷ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

³⁶⁸ Where Germany granted credit on a commercial basis, on national territory, by a migrant company, subject to prior authorization that was refused where the company does not have its central administration or a branch in that territory.Google Scholar

³⁶⁹ Case C-452/04, Fidium Finanz AG v. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, 2006 E.C.R. I-09521, para. 49 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁷⁰ Caixa Bank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961.Google Scholar

³⁷¹ Id. at paras. 12, 14 (emphasis added). “That prohibition is therefore to be regarded as a restriction within the meaning of Article 43 EC.” Id. at paras. 11, 12. See also C-518/06, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-3491, para. 64.Google Scholar

³⁷² Case C-451/05, Européenne et Luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA (ELISA) v. Directeur général des impôts and Ministère public, 2007 E.C.R. I-08251, para. 62 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁷³ In relation to the right of establishment, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49; Case C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v. Comune di Carbognan, judgment of 11 March 2010, para. 45 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁷⁴ Case C-153/02, Valentina Neri v. European School of Economics (ESE Insight World Education System Ltd), 2003 E.C.R. I-13555, para. 42 (“The recognition of those degrees by the authorities of a Member State is of considerable importance.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

³⁷⁵ Case C-500/06 2008 E.C.R. I-5785, para. 34 (emphasis added). Such was a restriction and a “serious obstacle” to the exercise of the free movement of establishment and services, id. at para. 33. Reference in the judgment was made to the national measure which is liable to impede or render less attractive the exercise of the basic freedoms guaranteed by TFEU art. 49 and 56, id. at para 32.Google Scholar

³⁷⁶ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁷⁷ Relating to a payment of remuneration.Google Scholar

³⁷⁸ Case C-346/06, Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen, 2008 E.C.R. I-1989, para. 14. Also, there has been recent confirmation that the freedom of establishment “entails for [Community nationals] access to, and pursuit of, activities as self-employed persons and the forming and management of undertakings.” See Case C-471/04, Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v. Keller Holding GmbH, 2006 E.C.R. I-2107, para. 29; see also Case C-451/05, Européenne et Luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA (ELISA) v. Directeur général des impôts and Ministère public, 2007 E.C.R. I-8251, para. 62; Case C-386/04, Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer v. Finanzamt München für Körperschaften, 2006 E.C.R. I-8203 para. 17; Case C-307/97, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v. Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt, 1999 E.C.R. I-6161, para. 34; C-446/03, Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey, 2005 E.C.R. I-10837, para. 30.Google Scholar

³⁷⁹ Joined Cases C-403/08 & C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA, v. QC Leisure, judgment of 4 October 2011.Google Scholar

³⁸⁰ Id. at para. 88. The obstacle providing a restriction on the right to provide services. See also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁸¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁸² In the context of the application of the provisions of TFEU art. 56.Google Scholar

³⁸³ “Cold calling” refers to the practice of telephoning potential clients in another Member State without prior consent.Google Scholar

³⁸⁴ Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financië, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 38 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁸⁵ Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Giuseppe Calafiori, 2006 E.C.R. I-294, para. 33 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁸⁶ Joined Cases C-94/04 & C-202/04, Federico Cipolla v. Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese and Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capoparte v. Roberto Melon et al., 2006 E.C.R. I-11421, para. 58 (“And therefore is likely to restrict the exercise of their activities providing services in that Member State.”).Google Scholar

³⁸⁷ Case C-518/06, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-3491, para. 70.Google Scholar

³⁸⁸ Id. at paras. 67, 70 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁸⁹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

³⁹⁰ The restrictions apply without distinction to both residents and non-residents.Google Scholar

³⁹¹ Case C-463/00, Comm'n v. Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-4581, para. 61 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁹² Case C-98/01, Comm'n v. U.K., 2003 E.C.R. I-4641, para. 47 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁹³ Case C-345/08, Krzysztof Pela v. Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2009 E.C.R. I-11677 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁹⁴ Formerly Article 39 EC.Google Scholar

³⁹⁵ Case C-345/08, Krzysztof Pela v. Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2009 E.C.R. I-11677, para. 53.Google Scholar

³⁹⁶ Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09, Vicoplus SC PUH, BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo and Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo v. Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, judgment of 10 February 2011.Google Scholar

³⁹⁷ Id. at para. 32 (emphasis added); see also C-113/89, Rush Portuguesa, 1990 E.C.R. I-141, paras 20 & 21.Google Scholar

³⁹⁸ Case C-96/08, CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi kft v. Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenrzési Hivatal (APEH) Hatósági Fosztály, judgment of 15 April 2010, para. 44 [hereinafter CIBA Case]. The case concerns regional legislation laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations. The rule, a restriction on the right of establishment, “makes access to the activity of fuel distribution subject to conditions and, by being more advantageous to operators who are already present on the Italian market, is liable to deter, or even prevent, access to the Italian market by operators from other Member States.” Id. at para. 45. Note the use of the term “deter.”Google Scholar

³⁹⁹ C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v. Comune di Carbognano, judgment of 11 March 2010, para. 39.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63 (providing that “[a]ll restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States … shall be prohibited”).Google Scholar

⁴⁰¹ Case C-171/08, Comm'n v. Portugal, judgment of 8 July 2010, (emphasis added). See also the language used recently in the CIBA Case, judgment of 15 April 2010, para. 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁰² The general charging provision in relation to nondiscrimination is now found under TFEU art. 18.Google Scholar

⁴⁰³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁵ Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Greece, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 68. The principle was expressed recently in Commission v. Hungary as arising “only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations.” Case C-253/09, Comm'n v. Hungary, judgment of 1 December 2011, para. 50. See also C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumacker 1995 E.C.R. I-225, para. 30; Case C-383/05 Raffaele Talotta v. Belgian State, 2007 E.C.R. I-2555, para. 18; Case C-182/06, État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v. Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink, 2007 E.C.R. I-6705, para. 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁶ Articles 7, 48, 59 have in common the prohibition, in their respective spheres of application, of any discrimination on grounds of nationality. See Walrave, 1974 E.C.R. 1405, para. 16. It is clear too from Comm'n v. Italy that the jurisprudence of goods reflects not only “the principle of ensuring the free access of Community products to national markets’ but also of nondiscrimination.” Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁷ For provisions relating to the worker, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU supra note 1, at art. 49; see for services, TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56; and for capital, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁸ Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Greece, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 48.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁹ Case 298/84, Paolo Iorio v. Azienda autonoma delle ferrovie dello Stato, 1986 E.C.R. 247, para. 13 (emphasis added). TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 18 (“Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”). It was held in Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz v. Finanzamt Stuttgart III that TFEU art. 18 “lays down a general prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality, applies independently only to situations governed by European Union law for which the Treaty lays down no specific rules of nondiscrimination.” Case C-240/10, Cathy Schulz-Delzers, judgment of 15 September 2011, para. 29. See also Case C-269/07, Comm'n v. Germany 2009 E.C.R. I-7811, paras. 98–99.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁰ The Court of Justice held that “in order to provide the referring court with a useful answer, the questions referred must be examined from the perspective of Article 12 EC, which enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.” See Case C-382/08, Michael Neukirchinger v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirche, judgment of 25 January 2011, para. 30; see also Case C-40/05 Kaj Lyyski v. Umeå universitet, 2007 E.C.R. I-99, para. 33; Case C-222/07, Unión de Televisiones Comerciales Asociadas (UTECA) v. Administración General del Estad, 2009 E.C.R. I-1407, para. 37.Google Scholar

⁴¹¹ See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁴¹² Case C-382/08, Neukirchinger, judgment of 25 January 2011, para. 32. National measures in connection with the requirement to apply for an operating license to operate balloon flights in Austria were held discriminatory on the grounds of nationality. See C-115/08, Land Oberösterreich v. EZ as, 2009 E.C.R. I-10265, para. 92.Google Scholar

⁴¹³ Case C-212/09, Comm'n v. Portugal, Case C-212/09: judgment of 10 November 2011, para. 65.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁴ Case C-58/90, Comm'n v. Italian Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-4193, para. 9. In this context, the judgment made reference to Case 167/73, Comm'n v. France, 1974 E.C.R. 359, para. 45; Case 2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, 1974 E.C.R. 631; and Case 33/74, Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, 1974 E.C.R. 1299.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁵ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 18.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁶ Case 167/73, Comm'n v. France, 1974 E.C.R. 359, para. 45.Google Scholar

⁴¹⁷ In Commission v. Spain, it was held that the Treaty free movement provisions “require the elimination of any discrimination against Community nationals on grounds of nationality with regard to access to employment, establishment and the provision of services.” Case C-375/92, Comm'n v. Spain, 1994 E.C.R. I-923, para. 9 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴¹⁸ In this context it has operated, for example, to ensure migrant nationals’ access to permanent employment in French public hospitals. Case 307/84, Comm'n v. France, 2006 E.C.R. 1725. Commission v. Greece concerned access to employment and the prohibiting or restriction of access for non-Greek nationals already employed in Greece to posts of director or teacher in “frontistiria” and in private music and dancing schools. Case 147/86 Comm'n v. Greece, 1988 E.C.R. 1637. The prohibition of discrimination extends to a context wider than the mere exercise of the Treaty right of free movement with respect to the worker. “It thus follows from the general character of the prohibition on discrimination in TFEU art. 45 and the objective pursued by the abolition of discrimination that discrimination is prohibited even if it constitutes only an obstacle of secondary importance as regards the equality of access to employment.” Case 167/73, Comm'n v. France, 1974 E.C.R. 359, para. 46 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴¹⁹ Case 167/73, Comm'n v. France 1974 E.C.R. 359, para. 45 (emphasis added). This finds expression in discrimination noted by the Court as raising “obstacles to access to the profession” that resulted in rendering unlawful a national law requiring de-registration of doctors in the home state as a precondition to registration in France. Case 96/85 Comm'n v. France, 1986 E.C.R. 1475, para. 11. Similar sentiments were expressed as “discrimination on grounds of nationality, which hinders or restricts engagement in paid employment, is contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty on freedom of movement for workers.” Case 147/86, Comm'n v. France, 1988 E.C.R. 1637, para. 19.Google Scholar

⁴²⁰ Case C-359/09, Donat Cornelius Ebert v. Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara, judgment of 3 February 2011.Google Scholar

⁴²¹ Id. at para. 41. In the context of the right of establishment, the Court in Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota and Others confirmed that “Article 56 TFEU requires … the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State.” Case C-515/08, Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota and Others, judgment of 7 October 2010, para. 29. See also Joined Cases C-372/09 & C-373/09, Josep Peñarroja Fa, judgment of 17 March 2011, para. 83; Case C-458/08 Comm'n v. Portugal, judgment of 18 November 2010, para. 82.Google Scholar

⁴²² See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁴²³ Case C-382/08, Neukirchinger, judgment of 25 January 2011, para. 32.Google Scholar

⁴²⁴ Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Greece, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 45.Google Scholar

⁴²⁵ Neukirchinger, judgment of 25 January 2011, para. 32.Google Scholar

⁴²⁶ Case C-155/09, Comm'n v. Greece, judgment of 20 January 2011, para. 45.Google Scholar

⁴²⁷ Case C-359/09, Donat Cornelius Ebert v. Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara, judgment of 3 February 2011.Google Scholar

⁴²⁸ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

⁴²⁹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴³⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49. See also Maatschapij, 1999 E.C.R. I-2329, para. 107.Google Scholar

⁴³¹ TFEU supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴³² The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973) (defining “restriction” as “a limitation imposed upon a person” and “obstacle” as “a hindrance, impediment, obstruction.”). Google Scholar

⁴³³ With respect to the right of establishment, TFEU art. 49 provides: “Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited” (emphasis added). The right to supply services provides: “Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended” (emphasis added). See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56. With respect to the free movement of capital, TFEU art. 63 provides that “[a]ll restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴³⁴ See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁴³⁵ Note the considerations made earlier with the concept of restrictions and the wording used in TFEU art. 56; TFEU art. 49. See, e.g., Case T-266/97, Vlaamse Televisie Maatschapij NV v. Comm'n, 1999 E.C.R. I-2329, para. 107; TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴³⁶ Case C-299/02, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I-9761.Google Scholar

⁴³⁷ Id. at paras. 20–21.Google Scholar

⁴³⁸ Id. at para. 15.Google Scholar

⁴³⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁰ Säger, 1991 E.C.R. I-4221, para. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁴¹ Id. at para 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁴² Id. at para 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁴³ Douane, 2002 E.C.R. I-5235.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁴ Id. at para. 38.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁵ Id. at para. 32.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁶ Case C-219/08, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2009 E.C.R. I-9213, paras. 13–14. The same description (with respect to the establishment of companies) applied to Hungarian restrictions in the CIBA Case, judgment of 15 April 2010, paras. 19, 44. Note also the same descriptive analogy to restrictions applied to Belgian legislation requiring a Portuguese company to file individual accounts in respect of Portuguese workers posted to Belgium. See Case C-515/08, Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota and Others, judgment of 7 October 2010, paras. 29, 40.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁷ An example is nondiscrimination and mutual recognition.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁸ For a discussion on the issue of market access and intuition, see Spaventa, supra note 136, at 914–32. Note, however, a contrary view in Advocate General Bot's Opinion that “the analysis to be carried out by the Court should not involve any complex economic assessment“ (emphasis added). See also Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 116.Google Scholar

⁴⁴⁹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁰ For provisions relating to workers, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁵¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁵² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁵³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁴ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁵ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁶ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁷ See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁸ Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

⁴⁵⁹ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁶¹ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁴⁶² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁶³ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁴ Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁵ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁶ See Snell, supra note 136, at 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁷ Id. at 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁸ For provisions relating to goods, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34; for workers, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU supra note 1, at art. 49; and for services, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁶⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 20 (“Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁰ See Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 40; Michele Everson, The Legacy of the Market Citizen, in New Legal Dynamics of European Integration (J. Shaw & G. More eds., 1995).Google Scholar

⁴⁷¹ See Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 40 (“Such as the right to free movement and residence and the right to be free from discrimination on grounds of nationality with regards to matters that fall within the material scope of EC law.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁷² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 20(2) (“Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: (a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁷³ See, e.g., Case C-85/96, María Martínez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, 1998 E.C.R I-2691, paras. 55, 62, 64; C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v. Belgian State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613, para. 29.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁴ There is authority for this proposition within the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, see C-138/02, Brian Francis Collins v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2004 E.C.R. I-2703, para. 63; Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08, Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze v. Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900, 2009 E.C.R. I-4585, para. 37; C-258/04, Office national de l'emploi v. Ioannis Ioannidis, 2005 E.C.R. I-8275, para. 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁵ Opinion of Advocate Gen. Poiares Maduro, Joined Cases C-158 & 159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v. Greece, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135, para. 51 (emphasis added). See also Opinion of Advocate Gen. Bot, Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, paras. 83, 118.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁶ See Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 36, 55 (suggesting it is a “novel idea” to place the argument in the context of the “broader developments which have taken place in the context of Union Citizenship,” even if the move to convergence has been an “unspoken” determination). See also Case 205/07, Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA, 2008 E.C.R. I-9947; Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v. Claudia Schmidt, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093; C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁷ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁸ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁰ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁸¹ See Keck and Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, para. 17; Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 38; Gourmet Int'l., 2001 E.C.R. I-1795, para. 18, 20; C-110/05 Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, paras. 34, 36, 37. See also Snell, supra note 134.Google Scholar

⁴⁸² See Opinion of Advocate Gen. Jacobs, Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, paras. 39–56; Opinion of Advocate Gen. Fennelly, Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, 2000 E.C.R. I-493; Opinion of Advocate Gen. Tizzano, CaixaBank, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961; Opinion of Advocate Gen. Maduro, Alfa Vita, 2006 E.C.R. I-8135; Opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott, Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273. See also Snell, supra note 134.Google Scholar

⁴⁸³ This is well documented, not only in this Article but in articles such as Catherine Barnard, Fitting the Remaining Pieces into the Goods and Persons Jigsaw?, 26 Eur. L. Rev. 35 (2001); Peter Oliver and Stefan Enchelmaier, Free movement of Goods: Recent Developments in the Case Law, 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 649, 674 (2007); Snell, supra note 134; Eleanor Spaventa, From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (non-)economic European Constitution, 41 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 743 (2004); Stephen Weatherill, After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification, 33 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 885 (1996); Spaventa, supra note 136. See also Barnard, supra note 171, at 21–24; Paul P. Craig & Gráinne De Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials 694–95 (4th ed. 2008) in the context of the free movement of goods.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁴ Adequate definitions relating to nondiscrimination have been provided. With respect to the Treaty rights of establishment and the right to supply services, it has been held that “the principle of equal treatment … prohibits 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 C-3/88, Comm'n v. Italy, 1989 E.C.R. 4035, para. 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁵ In the context of a discussion in relation to Keck and Mithouard, the concept has been identified as “inherently nebulous.” See Oliver and Enchelmaier, supra note 483.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁶ Barnard, supra note 171, at 21 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁷ Snell, supra note 134, at 468.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁸ See id. at 469.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁹¹ See, e.g., id. Google Scholar

⁴⁹² See Spaventa, From Gebhard, supra note 483, at 757.Google Scholar

⁴⁹³ See id. (making a comparative assessment about “[t]he ability for an economic actor to gain access to a market on an equal footing with other economic operators” (emphasis added)). Spaventa adds that “[t]his definition seems entirely consistent with the Court's view taken in Keck, but for the fact that the Court makes it clear that a rule preventing market access (i.e., a total barrier) falls within the definition, regardless of discrimination.” Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁴ See id. at 757 (noting that “any regulation imposes and implies compliance costs” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁵ See Snell, supra note 134, at 468–69 (noting that, in the context of a lack of clear content in the test of market access, “[m]arket access may simply provide a sophisticated-sounding garb that conceals decisions based on intuition”).Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁶ See Spaventa, From Gebhard, supra note 483, at 758. A later article expresses the same view that “[i]n the context of the free movement provisions, little effort has been devolved to defining the concept of market access; thus, so far, the concept has been used in an intuitive way rather than resting on accurate economic analysis.” Spaventa, supra note 136, at 923. See also Opinion of Advocate Gen. Bot, Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 116 (“As regards, … other categories of measures, it is necessary to examine their specific impact on patterns of trade, but the analysis to be carried out by the Court should not involve any complex economic assessment.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁷ See Spaventa, From Gebhard, supra note 483, at 757.Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁸ Id. at 758. Spaventa observes that those who would support the “market access” test would reject “a purely discriminatory assessment.” Id. There is, however, “an attempt to provide a test which would allow us to distinguish between rules which should be subjected to judicial scrutiny, and rules considered neutral as regards intra-Community trade which should fall altogether outside the scope of the Treaty free movement provisions.” Id. Note in this content the view of Advocate General Lenz that there should exist “a distinction between rules which regulate access to an occupational activity (which should be scrutinized), and rules which regulate the exercise of that activity (which should not be scrutinised).” Id. at 758 n.48.Google Scholar

⁴⁹⁹ See id. at 758.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁰ Spaventa, supra note 136, at 923. Hence “it becomes difficult to identify which, if any, national rules fall outside the scope of the Treaty and therefore need not be justified.” Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁰¹ Id. at 923 (“Below which national rules would not need to be justified”) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁰² C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁰³ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁴ Spaventa, supra note 136, at 924 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁵ C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁶ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁷ Spaventa, supra note 136, at 924: “But once we apply an effet utile approach to market access, so that any rule which not only directly limits access to a given market is caught by Art. 28 EC but also that which discourages an importer from accessing that market, then it is difficult to identify which rules, if any, would actually fall outside the market access test. In this respect, Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos seem to have brought the case law on goods in line with the case law on persons.” Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁸ Weatherill, supra note 483, at 896–97. See also Spaventa, From Gebhard, supra note 483, at 758. See also Barnard supra note 483, at 52–53 (discussing the possibility of a general test for market access based on the “prevention or direct and substantial hindrance of access to the market” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁹ Weatherill, supra note 483, at 896–97 (emphasis added). See also TFEU, supra note 1, at arts. 34, 56.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁰ Weatherill, supra note 483, at 897.Google Scholar

⁵¹¹ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵¹² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵¹³ See Weatherill, supra note 483, at 897. The effect of the “formula” places the onus then on the issue of justification. Id. “Non-discriminatory national measures that cross the threshold of a sufficient restriction on market access are compatible with EC law only provided: they are justified by mandatory requirements in the general interest; that they are apt to achieve the objective which they pursue; and that they do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.” Id. See also Dieter Kraus, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663; Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I-4165; Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁴ Weatherill, supra note 483, at 896–97, 899. See Her Majesty's Customs, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039; Case C-34/79, Regina v. Maurice Donald Henn and John Frederick Ernest Darby, 1979 E.C.R. 3795.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁵ See Case C-379/92, Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta, 1994 E.C.R. I-3453, para. 24 (stating that the effect of Italian rules on the freedom to provide services was too uncertain and indirect as to hinder trade between Member States). See also Weatherill, supra note 483, at 896–97, 899 (arguing that such amounts to “a statement of no direct restriction on market access.”).Google Scholar

⁵¹⁶ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 42 (“That would of course amount to introducing a de minimis test into Article 30”) (emphasis added). The Opinion was delivered in the context of TEC art. 30 (now 34 TFEU) vis-à-vis the application of the concept of the “selling arrangement.” The Advocate General was of the opinion that Article 30 (now 34 TFEU) be regarded as applying to non-discriminatory measures which are liable substantially to restrict access to the market. Id. at para. 49.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁷ Id. See also, e.g., Opinion of Advocate Gen. Stix-Hackl, Case C-322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v. 0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval, 2003 E.C.R. I-14,887, para. 78.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁸ Opinion of Advocate Gen. Jacobs, Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 44. So, for example, where there is a denial of access altogether, there is “a substantial barrier to market access.” Id. (emphasis added). By contrast, where the measure merely restricts the goods (as in the case of a selling arrangement), its impact will depend, for example, upon whether the measure applies to most goods, certain goods or to all goods. Id. at para. 45.Google Scholar

⁵¹⁹ See, e.g., Tryfonidou, supra note 466, at 51 (explaining that the first category would broach the adoption of a de minimis test, whereas a qualitative identification of the measure on the other hand relates for example to the type of measure scrutinised and whether it is harmful to interstate trade).Google Scholar

⁵²⁰ C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵²¹ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵²² TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵²³ C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵²⁴ See id. at para. 64 (justifying the measure in that instance by reasons of road safety).Google Scholar

⁵²⁵ Id. at para. 58. It was stated that Article 34 TFEU reflects the obligation to respect the principle of ensuring free access of Union products to national markets. See id. at summary.Google Scholar

⁵²⁶ See Snell, supra note 134, at 443. The notion of “market access” is an autonomous one. It appears within competition and WTO law but Snell notes that “[t]he way the concepts of barriers to entry and market access have developed in these contexts are fundamentally different from EU free movement law and as a result, any borrowing would be counterproductive.” Id. Google Scholar

⁵²⁷ For provisions relating to the worker, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49; for services, see TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵²⁸ Snell, supra note 134, at 443 (reflecting the right in TFEU art. 45 “(a) to accept offers of employment actually made; … (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State.”). Snell notes that (a) relates to access to employment and seems to be “absolute.” On the other hand (c) relates to rights after such access, “when the actual occupation has been exercised.” Id. at 444.Google Scholar

⁵²⁹ See Bosman Case, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921 (arguing that the evenhanded nature of the rules was of no relevance, since they affected access to the labour market).Google Scholar

⁵³⁰ Id. at para. 210 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵³¹ Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly, Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, 2000 E.C.R. I-493, para. 30.Google Scholar

⁵³² Opinion of Advocate General Alber, Case C-176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB), 2000 E.C.R. I-2681, para. 48. See also TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

⁵³³ Snell, supra note 134, at 445 (noting that the distinction is not accepted by the Court of Justice). The Court held in Commission v. Denmark that “[t]he manner in which an activity is pursued is liable also to affect access to that activity. Consequently, legislation which relates to the conditions in which an economic activity is pursued may constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement within the meaning of that case-law.” Case C-464/02, Comm'n v. Denmark, 2005 E.C.R. I-7929, para. 37.Google Scholar

⁵³⁴ C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵³⁵ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵³⁶ See Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 48. However, it should be noted that, in the context of TFEU art. 34 (ex TEC art. 28), Keck and Mithouard was imbued with a respect for the principle of nondiscrimination “because it only refers to, and, apparently, solely brings within the scope of art.28 EC, measures that either totally prevent access to the market (which are inherently discriminatory in nature) or discriminate against imported products as regards access to the market.” Id. Google Scholar

⁵³⁷ Id. at 54.Google Scholar

⁵³⁸ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵³⁹ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 37 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁰ See Case C-205/07, Lodewijk Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter BVBA, 2008 E.C.R. I-9947, paras. 40–44 (holding that the scope of Article 35 TFEU with respect to the free movement of exports was defined by the principle of nondiscrimination); Wenneras & Moen, supra note 136, at 393; Anthony Dawes, A Freedom Reborn? The New Yet Unclear Scope of Article 29 EC, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 639, 641–43 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁴¹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁴² Case C-484/10, Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (Ascafor), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores de Acero para la Construcción (Asidac) v. Administración del Estado, et al, judgment of 1 March 2012.Google Scholar

⁵⁴³ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁴ See Tryfonidou, supra note 466, at 54.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁵ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 20 (“Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.”).Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁶ See Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 36, 55.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁷ Case C-85/96, María Martínez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, 1998 E.C.R I-2691, paras. 55, 62, 64.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁸ C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v. Belgian State, 2003 E.C.R. I-11613, para. 29.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁹ See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁰ Snell, supra note 134, at 437.Google Scholar

⁵⁵¹ Leclerc-Siplec, 1995 E.C.R. I-179.Google Scholar

⁵⁵² Mithouard Keck and, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097.Google Scholar

⁵⁵³ Opinion of Advocate Gen. Jacobs in Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, paras. 39–40.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁴ Id. at para. 40.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁵ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁷ Id. Although the opinion was set in the context of the application of TFEU art. 34, the rationale of the Advocate General's argument could be applied equally across other Treaty free movement rights.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁸ See id. Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁹ See supra note 407.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁰ See Prechal, Sacha & Sybe A. de Vries, Seamless Web of Judicial Protection in the Internal Market?, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 5, 8 n.15 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁶¹ See id.; Barnard, supra note 171, at 21.Google Scholar

⁵⁶² See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁵⁶³ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁴ See Barnard, supra note 171, at 19.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁵ The recent discussion on citizenship would appear to confirm this.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁶ See Rewe-Zentral, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 14 (“There is therefore no valid reason why, provided that they have been lawfully produced and marketed in one of the Member States, [goods] should not be introduced into any other Member State.”).Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁷ Or obstacles.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁸ It would be rendered unlawful. The onus is then placed on the Member State to justify the restriction or obstacle to the free movement right.Google Scholar

⁵⁶⁹ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁰ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁷¹ The “provisional value” for the EU's population in 2011 is 502476606 people. See Eurostate News Release, European Union (July 28, 2011), http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-28072011-AP/EN/3-28072011-AP-EN.PDF (last visited May. 23, 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁷² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁷³ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁴ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁵ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 63.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁶ See Dassonville, 1974 E.C.R. 837. Note that, in the context of the free movement of goods, the problem arising in relation to the application of TFEU art. 34 arose from the presentation of an extremely wide definition of the concept of the “measure having equivalent effect” through Dassonville. The link between TFEU art. 34 and the internal market had thereby been pushed too far in favour of general review of national market regulation. The jurisprudence in consequence was dissociated from a need to show a hindrance to trading activities aimed at the realization of the internal market. See Weatherill, supra note 483, at 896–97, 905.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁷ C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁸ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁹ By contrast, an intuitive assessment of whether the national law has hindered “market access” is, on the other hand, open to the charge that the resulting assessment may be tainted with an element of subjectivity.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁰ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁸¹ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁸² See Spaventa, supra note 136, at 924–25. Jurisprudence which, Spaventa has argued, concerns not only access to the market but probably—and more importantly—rules which restrict activities within the market place. These are described as national rules which discourage the importer's market penetration in that the consumer base is reduced or the costs of the migrant are increased.Google Scholar

⁵⁸³ The application of the “market access” test must in principle then be justified in the particular circumstances along with the benchmark requisites of necessity and proportionality. See id. at 925.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁴ Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 55.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁵ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁶ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁷ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁸ Mickelsson, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁰ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093.Google Scholar

⁵⁹¹ Case C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 34 (explaining that TFEU art. 34 “reflects the obligation to respect the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets”).Google Scholar

⁵⁹² Wenneras & Moen, supra note 136, at 392 (“This follows from the structure and wording of the reasoning, in which the Court emphasizes that art. 34 TFEU reflects the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition; ‘hence,’ product requirements are caught by art. 34 TFEU, whereas ‘in contrast’ selling arrangements may be caught only if proven discriminatory.”). This reasoning is reminiscent of that set out in Keck. There is also in this context nothing jurisprudentially mischievous in the maintenance of the focus of enquiry upon the national restriction to the free movement right. See infra Part D.II.3.Google Scholar

⁵⁹³ Together with the ubiquitously available justification process.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁴ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁵ For provisions relating to workers, TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45; for establishment, TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49 (particularly in this context in relation to persons).Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁶ TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁷ Ker-Optika, judgment of 2 December 2010.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁸ Case C-212/08, Zeturf Ltd v. Premier minister, judgment of 30 June 2011.Google Scholar

⁵⁹⁹ Ker-Optika, judgment of 2 December 2010.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁰ See id. para. 54. See also Case C-322/01, Deutscher ApothekerverbandeV v. 0800 DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval, 2003 E.C.R. I-14887, para. 74.Google Scholar

⁶⁰¹ See Zeturf, judgment of 30 June 2011, para. 74.Google Scholar

⁶⁰² Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁶⁰³ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁴ See Ker-Optika, judgment of 2 December 2010, para. 54 (“It is clear that the prohibition on selling contact lenses by mail order deprives traders from other Member States of a particularly effective means of selling those products and thus significantly impedes access of those traders to the market of the Member State concerned.” (emphasis added)).Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁵ See Zeturf, judgment of 30 June 2011, para. 74.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁶ See supra note 450.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁷ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁸ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁶⁰⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁰ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 56.Google Scholar

⁶¹¹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 45.Google Scholar

⁶¹² See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 49; Barnard, supra note 171, at 25; Peter Oliver, Of Trailers and Jet Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU Hurtling in a New Direction?, 33 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1423 (2011).Google Scholar

⁶¹³ Note, however, that, in the context of the application of TFEU art. 34, Advocate General Jacobs has expressed the view that “it would be more appropriate to measure restrictions against a single test formulated in the light of the purpose of art. 30.” See Case C-412/93, Société d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-179, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁴ Note in this context that Commission v. Italy held “[i]t is … apparent from settled case-law that Article 28 EC (now 34 TFEU) reflects the obligation to respect the principle … of ensuring free access of Community products to national markets.” C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 34.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁵ William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice act 2, sc. 7.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁶ The process importantly allowing for the operation of the principle of proportionality specifically directing the focus of the application of Treaty free movement law in particular instances.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁷ Tryfonidou, supra note 136, at 56.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁸ Case C-484/10, Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (Ascafor), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores de Acero para la Construcción (Asidac) v. Administración del Estado, et, [hereinafter Asociación para la Calidad], judgment of 1 March 2012.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁹ See TFEU, supra note 1, at art. 34.Google Scholar

⁶²⁰ Case C-484/10, Asociación para la Calidad, judgment of 1 March 2012, para. 53. See C-110/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-2093, para. 34.Google Scholar

⁶²¹ See Joined Cases C-72/10 & C-77/10, Marcello Costa, Ugo Cifone, judgment of 16 February 2012, para. 54.Google Scholar

⁶²² Case C-484/10, Asociación para la Calidad, judgment of 1 March 2012.Google Scholar

⁶²³ See Joined Cases C-72/10 & C-77/10, Marcello Costa, Ugo Cifone, judgment of 16 February 2012, para 54.Google Scholar

Article contents

“Market Access” or Bust? Positioning the Principle within the Jurisprudence of Goods, Persons, Services, and Capital

Extract

References

Article contents

“Market Access” or Bust? Positioning the Principle within the Jurisprudence of Goods, Persons, Services, and Capital

Extract

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests