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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁶ Art. 28 (ex 30) EC.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁵ Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁵ Id., para. 19.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴⁵ For example rules concerning qualifications and licences.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵² Art. 12 EC.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

⁵⁷ Judgment delivered 18 March 1980.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

⁶³ Art. 3(1)(c) EC.Google Scholar

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

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

⁶⁶ Id., para 8.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Art. 48 (now 39) EC.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Art. 52 (now 43) EC.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

⁷⁴ Id., para. 15.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

⁷⁹ Id., para. 23.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁹¹ Id., para 18.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁹⁹ Id., para 12.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹³⁹ Or obstacle.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

¹⁴⁴ Art. 12 (ex 6) EC.Google Scholar

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

¹⁴⁶ Id. Google Scholar

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

¹⁴⁸ Id., para. 57.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁵¹ Id., para. 29.Google Scholar

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

¹⁵³ Id., para. 32.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁵⁶ Both imported and exported product.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁶² 25 October 2001.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁶⁵ Id., para. 30.Google Scholar

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

¹⁶⁷ 12 January 2006.Google Scholar

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

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

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

¹⁷¹ See, supra, note 171.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁷⁷ See, supra, note 177.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ See, Supra, note 177.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁸⁵ See, supra, note 187.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁰⁵ Id., para. 35.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ See, supra, note 205.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ By the Dutch Government.Google Scholar

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

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

²¹⁰ Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

²¹⁵ Id., para. 12.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

²²² Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²³⁸ Id., para. 29.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁴⁶ Id., para. 23.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁶⁴ See, supra, note 262.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁸⁶ Id., para. 14.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁹⁷ Art. 30 (ex 36) EC.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

³⁰³ Id., para. 25.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³¹⁴ Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³²⁶ Art. 30 (ex 36) EC.Google Scholar

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

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

³²⁹ Art. 55 (ex 66) EC.Google Scholar

³³⁰ Public/general interest.Google Scholar

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

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

³³³ Id., para. 37.Google Scholar

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

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

³³⁶ Id., para. 40.Google Scholar

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

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

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

³⁴⁰ Id.Google Scholar

³⁴¹ Id.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁵⁵ Id., para. 17.Google Scholar

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

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

³⁵⁸ Id. Google Scholar

³⁵⁹ See, supra, note 354.Google Scholar

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

³⁶¹ See, supra, note 358.Google Scholar

³⁶² See, supra, note 354.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

³⁶⁷ See, supra, note 355.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁷⁶ Id., para. 58.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁹¹ See, supra, note 355.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴⁰⁰ See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar

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

⁴⁰² See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar

⁴⁰³ See, supra, note 400.Google Scholar