Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
FMS art.56 & FoE art.49 Primary Law in absence harmonisation -…
FMS art.56 & FoE art.49
Primary Law
in absence harmonisation
FoE
Scope
(Natural + legal) person
MS nationality
Exercise of economic activity
No subordination (<-> FMW)
MS behaviour + certain private parties
Cross-border element
No carve-out
Indefinite period + stable infrastructure
Restrictions
remove all obstacles (not only discrimination)
Gebhard
, para. 37
Direct discrimination (distinctly applicable)
i.e. based on nationality
Indirect discrimination (indistincly applicable with discr. effect)
e.g. residence requirements (individuals), national language requirements, national diploma requirement,…
Restriction (indistinctly applicable obstacle)
Obstacles to?
Right of exit/export of services
Right of access market + right to exercise service activities
Obstacles can be imposed by home state and host state
Access includes access with workforce (cf
infra, Laval)
Right to equal treatment includes social + tax advantages
Justifications
Direct discrimination: art.52(1) TFEU
closed list of grounds + proportionality
Indirect discrimination
Art.52(1) TFEU +proportionality
Rule of reason
Open list of grounds (codification in SD)
+proportionality
economic justifications do not count
But: blurry line between econ and social reasons
Proportionality (for both)
Appropriate to secure attainment of aim (evidence based)
Neccessary: no less restrictive means available
in sensitive areas: wider margin of appreciation
FMS
Scope
(Natural + legal) person
MS nationality
Exercise of economic activity
No subordination (<-> FMW)
MS behaviour + certain private parties
Cross-border element
No carve-out
Temporary + occasional
Established in a MS other than recipient
Restrictions
remove all obstacles (not only discrimination)
Säger
C76/90, para. 12;
Alpine Investment
C-384/93 para. 35 or
Schindler
C-275/92, para. 43
Direct discrimination (distinctly applicable)
i.e. based on nationality
Indirect discrimination (indistincly applicable with discr. effect)
e.g. residence requirements (individuals), national language requirements, national diploma requirement,
Restriction (indistinctly applicable obstacle)
Obstacles to?
Right of exit/export of services
Right of access market + right to exercise service activities
Obstacles can be imposed by home state and host state
Access includes access with workforce (cf
infra, Laval)
Right to equal treatment includes social + tax advantages Obstacles for service providers + recipients
Justifications
Direct discrimination
: art.52(1) TFEU
closed list of grounds + proportionality
Indirect discrimination
Art.52(1) TFEU +proportionality
Rule of reason
Open list of grounds (codification in SD)
+proportionality
Contentious issues
Restrictions
Everything a restriction? Threshold?
E.g. additional costs; taxation
No ’selling arrangements’ carve-out (cf.
Alpine Investment)
Different approaches
as ‘solutions’ by Court, such as:
no restriction if effect is merely to create additional costs in respect of services in question (
Mobistar
)
no restriction if ‘modest’ tax (
Viacum II
)
no restriction simply because other MS apply less strict/more commercially favourable rules
(Commission v Italy
(maximum fees lawyers))
Legal persons: taking advantage of freedom
Rule of reason: prevention of abuse of law /wrongful evasion applicability national law
‘real seat’ doctrine
Welfare state- healthcare
FMS medical treatment: prior authorisation & refusals to reimburse -> restrictions -> pressure on welfare state
Solutions: harmonisation of criteria + Art. 56 TFEU (justification controlling budget social security system)
Case Law
Commission v. Belgium
(notaries) 2011
Josemans
(2010) C-137/09
about coffeeshop in Maasi
Alpine Investments
(1995) C-384/93
about cold calling to offer financial services
Omega Spielhallen
about German prohibition for lasertag justified on danger to public policy
fundamental value = protection of human dignity = legitimate interest
Laval
(2007) C-341/05
about posting Latvian workers to SWE and action to apply Swedish agreement to the staff
could not apply rules as proportionality not fulfilled