Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 52 [Special Provision on Public Policy, Public Security, or Public Health]

(ex-Article 46 TEC)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary

Part of the book series: Springer Commentaries on International and European Law ((SCIEL))

  • 1793 Accesses

Abstract

Article 52 TFEU (originally Article 56 TEEC 1957, renumbered Article 46 TEC-Amsterdam) provides a public policy exception or “ordre public-reservation” to the freedom of establishment. Unlike Article 51 TFEU, it does not exempt any activities from the scope of application of the freedom of establishment. Rather, it is a rule of justification for interferences based on the legitimate grounds listed in paragraph 1. More precisely, under Article 52.1 TFEU, measures discriminating against foreign nationals can be justified by reasons of public policy, public security, or public health. In systematic terms and according to its wording, Article 52 TFEU specifically applies to interferences with the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU. However, as far as this right is concerned, Article 52 TFEU as lex specialis also derogates from the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality (Article 18 TFEU) and the free movement of Union citizens (Article 21 TFEU).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    E.g. Kotzur, in Geiger et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 2. The term “ordre public”, in this context, merely serves as a generic term for public policy, public security and public health. It is not identical to the broader ordre public-concept of private international law.

  2. 2.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 4; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 482 et seq.; Khan and Eisenhut, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 2.

  3. 3.

    For cross-references to Article 36 TFEU see e.g. Case C-367/89, Richardt and Les Accessoires Scientifiques (ECJ 4 October 1991) para 22; Case C-83/94, Leifer and others (ECJ 17 October 1995) para 26; Case C-158/96, Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 51; Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 17; Case C-145/09, Land Baden-Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010) para 44.

  4. 4.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 4; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 6; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 571.

  5. 5.

    Case 41/74, van Duyn v Home Office (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18 et seq; Case 67/74, Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln (ECJ 26 February 1975), para 6; Case 36/75, Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 26 et seq.; Case C-363/89, Roux v Belgian State (ECJ 5 February 1991); Case C-260/89, ERT and others v Pliroforissis and others (ECJ 18 June 1991) para 24; Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 23; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 28; Joined Cases C-482 and C-493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 64, 79; Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 35. See also Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 2; Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 21; Tiedje, in: von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 15; White (2004), p. 89.

  6. 6.

    Case C-363/89, Roux v Belgium (ECJ 5 February 1991) para 30; Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 21.

  7. 7.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 1, 21; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 33; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 4.

  8. 8.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 37.

  9. 9.

    Case C-158/96, Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 47 et seq.; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 4; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 17 et seq.; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 6. Cf. also Barnard (2019), p. 477.

  10. 10.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 37.

  11. 11.

    Parliament/Council Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, O.J. L 376/36 (2006).

  12. 12.

    Case C-593/13, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and others v Rina Services SpA and others (ECJ 16 June 2015) para 40; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 4, 18; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 49 para 6, Article 5 para 44; Cornils, in Schlachter and Ohler (2008), Article 9 para 28; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 83.

  13. 13.

    Parliament/Council Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, O.J. L 158/77 (2004), Article 27 et seq.

  14. 14.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 33.

  15. 15.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 6.

  16. 16.

    Cf. Article 3 Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR.

  17. 17.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 2.

  18. 18.

    Case 79/85, D. H. M. Segers v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank (ECJ 10 July 1986) para 17; Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v Netherlands (ECJ 26 April 1988) para 31 et seq.; Case C-484/93, Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de l’Urbanisme (ECJ 14 November 1995) para 15 et seq.; Case C-264/96, ICI v Kenneth Hall Colmer (ECJ 16 July 1998) para 24 et seq; Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 40–43; Case C-299/02, Commission v Netherlands (ECJ 14 October 2004) para 17 et seq.; Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 35; Case C-546/07, Commission v Germany (ECJ 21 January 2010) para 47 et seq; Case 64/08, Engelmann (ECJ 9 September 2010) para 34; implicitly Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs (ECJ 9 March 1999) para 32, 34. See also Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 3.

  19. 19.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 18; Forsthoff (2001), p. 62.

  20. 20.

    Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs (ECJ 9 March 1999) para 14 et seq.; Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v NCC (ECJ 5 November 2002) para 56 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs (ECJ 9 March 1999) para 34 with the simple statement that the reasons put forward to justify an application of domestic company law according to the real seat theory do not fall within the ambit of Article 52.

  22. 22.

    Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs (ECJ 9 March 1999) para 26: “rules concerning the carrying on of certain trades, professions or businesses.”; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 5 et seq.; similarly: Behrens (2000), p. 135.

  23. 23.

    Khan and Eisenhut, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 3.

  24. 24.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking (ECJ 11 December 2007) para 75; Tietje, in Ehlers (2014), para 62. With regard to trade unions see Barnard (2019), p. 229 fn. 238.

  25. 25.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Barnard (2019), p. 484 et seq.

  26. 26.

    Case C-484/93, Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de l’Urbanisme (ECJ 14 November 1995) para 15; Case C-224/97, Ciola v Land Vorarlberg (ECJ 29 April 1999) para 16; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 572.

  27. 27.

    Case C-55/94, Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (ECJ 30 November 1995) para 37.

  28. 28.

    Case C-405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen v GIP (ECJ 8 March 2001) para 40 et seq.

  29. 29.

    Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04, Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA (C-151/04) and Durré (C-152/04) (ECJ 15 December 2005) para 39; Case C-169/07, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (ECJ 10 March 2009) para 46 et seq.; Case C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano (ECJ 10 March 2010) para 46; Case C-509/12, IPTM v Navileme and Nautizende (ECJ 6 February 2014) para 20. In some cases, the Court left open whether it applied Article 52 or unwritten imperative requirements, e.g. Case C-137/09, Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (ECJ 16 December 2010) para 61 et seq.

  30. 30.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Hobe (2017), para 851; Enchelmaier (2011), p. 636; Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 103; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 84.

  31. 31.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 14, 37; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 4; Schneider (1998), p. 37.

  32. 32.

    Case C-108/96, Mac Quen and others (ECJ 1 February 2001) para 28; Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, district Rotterdam v Sea-Land Service Inc. and Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (ECJ 13 June 2002) para 41; Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Gräbner (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 57; Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media (ECJ 17 July 2008) para 37; Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others v Saarland (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 27; Case C-539/11, Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara (ECJ 26 September 2013) para 33 et seq.; Joined Cases C-159/12 – 161/12, Venturini v ASL Varese and others (ECJ 5 December 2013) para 41. See also Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 5; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 4.

  33. 33.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 14.

  34. 34.

    Cf. the argument put forward by the Commission in Case C-137/09, Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (ECJ 16 December 2010) para 62. Moreover, Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 574 consider that also national rules having the effect of prohibiting cross-border activities or transactions, even if non-discriminatory, should be capable of justification only on the basis of Article 52.

  35. 35.

    Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 574; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 93.

  36. 36.

    Case C-509/12, IPTM v Navileme and Nautizende (ECJ 6 February 2014) para 20.

  37. 37.

    E.g. Case C-42/02, Lindmann (ECJ 13 November 2003) para 34, 25; in the context of the free movement of goods Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v Schleswag AG (ECJ 13 March 2001) para 72 et seq. See also Schroeder (2019), p. 283 et seq.; Will (2013), p. 328.

  38. 38.

    Trstenjak and Beysen (2013), pp. 300 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 807; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 573; Barnard and Snell, in Barnard and Peers (2017), p. 422 et seq; Enchelmaier (2011), pp. 637 et seq.; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 92.

  40. 40.

    Case C-388/01, Commission v Italy (ECJ 16 January 2003), para 19; Case C-311/97, Royal Bank of Scotland v Greece (ECJ 29 April 1999), para 32; Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti v Calafiori (ECJ 30 March 2006), para 36; Case C-153/08, Commission v Spain (ECJ 6 October 2009), para 36 et seq.; Case C-375/14, Laezza (ECJ 28 January 2016), para 26.

  41. 41.

    E.g. Case C-411/03, SEVIC (ECJ 13 December 2005), para 23; Papadopoulos (2011), pp. 79 et seq.

  42. 42.

    Case C-204/90, Bachmann v Belgium (ECJ 28 January 1992), para 32; Case C-250/95, Futura Participations SA v Administration des contributions (ECJ 15 May 1997), para 26; Case C-254/97, Baxter and others v Premier Ministre and others (ECJ 8 July 1999) para 18.

  43. 43.

    Barnard (2019), p. 434 et seq.; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 579. Even with regard to this group of cases the case law is inconsistent. Other rulings on discrimination on grounds of the place of establishment of the service provider explicitly refer to Article 52 as the only option of justification, e.g. Case C-211/91, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 16 December 1992), para 11; Case C-375/14, Laezza (ECJ 28 January 2016), para 26.

  44. 44.

    Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 571 et seq.; Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 2, 5, 7 et seq.; Forsthoff (2001), pp. 59 et seq.; Everling, in Schön (1997), p. 619; Khan and Eisenhut, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 4; Tietje, in Ehlers (2014), para 59.

  45. 45.

    Case 41/74, van Duyn v Home Office (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 22; Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui (115/81) & Cornuaille v Belgium (116/81) (ECJ 18 May 1982), para 7; Case 131/85, Gül v Regierungspräsident Düsseldorf (ECJ 7 May 1986), para 17; Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-111/95, Shingara (C-65/95) and Radiom (C111/95) v The Queen (ECJ 17 June 1997), para 28; Case C-416/96, El-Yassini v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECJ 2 March 1999), para 45; Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 42; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 29; Case C-63/99, The Queen v Gloszczuk (ECJ 27 September 2001), para 78; Case C-100/01, Ministre de l’Intérieur v Olazabal (ECJ 26 November 2002), para 40.

  46. 46.

    Behrens (2000), p. 135.

  47. 47.

    Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 85; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 100; Schneider (1998), p. 36. Interestingly, authors arguing for a general limitation of the scope of applicability recognise certain exceptions to this rule, c.f. Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 16, 19.

  48. 48.

    Fischer, in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Article 52 AEUV para 1.

  49. 49.

    Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 2.

  50. 50.

    Barnard (2019), p. 477; Foster (2018), para 12.5.2; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 86.

  51. 51.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 17.

  52. 52.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 7.

  53. 53.

    Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 6; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 para 7; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 7; Khan and Eisenhut, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 5; Oppermann et al. (2018), p. 493; Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 100; Schneider (1998), p. 78.

  54. 54.

    Case 41/74, van Duyn v Home Office (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18; Case 30/77, Regina v Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977), para 34; Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui (115/81) & Cornuaille v Belgium (116/81) (ECJ 18 May 1982), para 8; Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 17; Case C-268/99, Jany and others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 20 November 2001), para 60; Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Stadt Bonn (ECJ 14 October 2004), para 31; Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor v Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008), para 23; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 32; Case C-434/10, Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 34. Similarly, in the context of the free movement of capital Case C-483/99, Commission v France (ECJ 4 June 2002), para 48; Case C-503/99, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 4 June 2002), para 47; Case C-171/08, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 8 July 2010), para 73. See also Barnard (2019), p. 477 et seq.; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 3, 25; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 7; White (2004), p. 89.

  55. 55.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 23 et seq.

  56. 56.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 26. Forsthoff’s assertion, however, that there are no content-related limits at all is not entirely correct as the ECJ requires a threat to a fundamental interest of society (➔ para 23).

  57. 57.

    Case 36/75, Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 26, 28; Case Regina v Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977), para 35; Case 249/86, Commission v Germany (ECJ 18 May 1989), para 17; Case C-348/96, Donatella Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 21; Case C-350/96, Clean Car v Landeshauptmann von Wien (ECJ 7 May 1998), para 40; Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 20/46; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 28; Case C-476/98, Commission v Germany (ECJ 5 November 2002), para 157; Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 17; Case C-100/01, Ministre de l’Intérieur v Olazabal (ECJ 26 November 2002), para 39; Joined Cases C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 66; Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor v Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008), para 23; Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 35; Case C-207/07, Commission v Spain (ECJ 17 July 2008), para 47; Case C-326/07, Commission v Italy (ECJ 26 March 2009), para 70; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 33; Case C-434/10, Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 37. For a general survey see Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 para 18, 21, 24 et seq. The requirements discussed here are usually regarded as immanent limitations to the very grounds of justification; occasionally, however, they are seen as specific expressions of the principle of proportionality, e.g. Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 103.

  58. 58.

    Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 36; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 17.

  59. 59.

    Case C-476/98, Commission v Germany (ECJ 5 November 2002), para 157 and 159.

  60. 60.

    Case C-353/89, Commission v Netherlands (ECJ 25 July 1991), para 15; Case C-434/10, Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 40. Codified in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, O.J. L 158/77 (2004), Article 27.1. For the broader context of this fundamental doctrine see Oliver (2016), pp. 147 et seq.

  61. 61.

    Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 42; Case C-421/98, Commission v Spain (ECJ 23 November 2000), para 41; Case C-514/03, Commission v Spain (ECJ 26 January 2006), para 28; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 29.

  62. 62.

    Case C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 46.

  63. 63.

    Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui (115/81) & Cornuaille v Belgium (116/81) (ECJ 18 May 1982), para 7 et seq.; Case C-268/99, Jany and others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 20 November 2001) para 59 et seq. See also Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 27; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 35; Schlag, in Schwarze (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 8; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 9; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 8; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 484. The converse position in Case 41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 23, has been overruled by these later decisions, cf. White (2004), pp. 89 et seq.; Foster (2018), para 12.5.2.

  64. 64.

    Cf. with regard to prostitution the critical comments on Case C-268/99, Jany and others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 20 November 2001), by Kotzur, in Geiger et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 2; Lenze (2002), p. 109.

  65. 65.

    Kotzur, in Geiger et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 3; Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 20; Tietje, in Ehlers (2014), para 60.

  66. 66.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 32; Hailbronner (2004), pp. 299 et seq.; Weiss and Wooldridge (2007), pp. 153 et seq.

  67. 67.

    Smit and Herzog (1998), Article 56 TFEU para 56.05.

  68. 68.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 19.

  69. 69.

    White (2004), p. 89.

  70. 70.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 34. With regard to previous criminal convictions also Article 27.2 (1) Directive 2004/38/EC; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 36 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 7.

  72. 72.

    Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 102. Frenz (2012), para 2574 argues that only rights and interests based on EU law can constitute public policy-goods. However, the very purpose of Article 52 is to protect the national odre public of the MS in conflict with EU law, Schneider (1998), p. 72.

  73. 73.

    Also Article 27.2 (2) Directive 2004/38/EC.

  74. 74.

    Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 22; Joined Cases C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 67; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 34. Also Article 27.2 (1) Directive 2004/38/EC. For a detailed discussion see Barnard (2019), p. 478 et seq.

  75. 75.

    CISA (O.J. L 239/19 (2000)), signed on 19 June 1990.

  76. 76.

    Case C-503/03, Commission v. Spain (ECJ 31 January 2006), para 48 et seq; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 35.

  77. 77.

    Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 22; Joined Cases C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 67; Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010), para 54; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 42.

  78. 78.

    Case C-137/09, Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (ECJ 16 December 2010) para 65.

  79. 79.

    Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Stadt Bonn (ECJ 14 October 2004), para 34 et seq.

  80. 80.

    Case C-476/98, Commission v Germany (ECJ 5 November 2002), para 157 et seq. Nevertheless, the ECJ rejected the invocation of Article 52 because it saw no direct link between the supposed threat to this interest and the contested Treaty clause discriminating against airlines from other MS.

  81. 81.

    Case 79/85, D. H. M. Segers v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank (ECJ 10 July 1986); Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v The Netherlands State (ECJ 26 April 1988) para 34; Case C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v Commissariaat voor de Media (ECJ 25 July 1991), para 11; Case C-17/92, Cinematograficos v Spain (ECJ 4 May 1993), para 16; Case C-484/93, Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de l’Urbanisme (ECJ 14 November 1995) para 15; Case C-264/96, ICI v Kenneth Hall Colmer (ECJ 16 July 1998) para 28; Case C-436/00, X,Y v Riksskatteverket (ECJ 21 November 2002), para 50; Case C-168/01, Bosal Holding v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (ECJ 18 September 2003), para 42; Case C-243/01, Gambelli and others (ECJ 6 November 2003), para 61; Case C-319/02, Manninen (ECJ 7 September 2004), para 49; Case C-446/03, Marks & Spencer v David Halsey (ECJ 13 December 2005), para 44. See also Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 590.

  82. 82.

    White (2004), pp. 87 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 35.

  84. 84.

    Case C-249/11, Byankov v Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 4 October 2012), para 37 et seq. (prohibition on leaving the territory); Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs (ECJ 9 March 1999) para 32 et seq. (requirement of a minimum share capital for private limited companies).

  85. 85.

    Case C-211/91, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 16 December 1992), para 10; Case C-17/92, Cinematograficos v Spain (ECJ 4 May 1993), para 20. However, the apodictic language of these judgments might be misleading. Ultimately, the Court has dismissed the invocation of grounds of cultural policy because of the inconsistency and scope of the national restrictions under review.

  86. 86.

    Case C-3/88, Commission v Italy (ECJ 5 December 1989), para 14 et seq.

  87. 87.

    Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 37.

  88. 88.

    Case 48/75, Royer (ECJ 8 April 1976), para 39/47; Case C-215/03, Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (ECJ 17 February 2005), para 42; similarly, Case 118/75, Watson (ECJ 7 July 1976), para 17 et seq.; Case 249/86, Commission v Germany (ECJ 18 May 1989), para 20; Case C-459/99, MRAX v Belgium (ECJ 25 July 2002), para 79. See also Frenz (2012), para 2579; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 34.

  89. 89.

    Case 48/75, Royer (ECJ 8 April 1976), para 42; Case 118/75, Watson (ECJ 7 July 1976), para 21; Case C-215/03, Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (ECJ 17 February 2005), para 38. Now Article 5.5, 8.2, 9.3, 20.2 and 26 Directive 2004/38/EC.

  90. 90.

    Cf., in particular, Case C-215/03, Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (ECJ 17 February 2005), para 40. See also Barnard (2019), p. 486.

  91. 91.

    Case C-363/89, Roux v Belgian State (ECJ 5 February 1991) para 29 et seq.

  92. 92.

    White (2004), p. 92; see also Barnard (2019), p. 477 et seq. Disapproving (two distinct grounds of justification) Schneider (1998), p. 37.

  93. 93.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 10.

  94. 94.

    Slightly broader Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 19, drawing on the German concept of “öffentliche Sicherheit” by including individual rights in general.

  95. 95.

    Case C-367/89, Richardt and Les Accessoires Scientifiques (ECJ 4 October 1991) para 22; Case C-83/94 Leifer and others (ECJ 17 October 1995), para 26; Case C-273/97, Sirdar v The Army Board und Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999), para 17; Case C-285/98, Kreil v Germany (ECJ 11 January 2000), para 17; Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000), para 18; Case C-186/01, Dory v Germany (ECJ 11 March 2003), para 32; Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010),para 43 et seq.

  96. 96.

    In particular Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010), para 44. Similarly, Case 72/83, Campus Oil and others v Minister for Industry and Energy and others (ECJ 10 July 1984), para 34 et seq.; Case C-83/94, Leifer and others (ECJ 17 October 1995) para 28; Case C-70/94, Werner v Germany (ECJ 17 October 1995), para 27; Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000), para 22.

  97. 97.

    Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010), para 47.

  98. 98.

    Case C-273/97, Sirdar v The Army Board und Secretary of State for Defence (ECJ 26 October 1999), para 15; Case C-285/98, Kreil v Germany (ECJ 11 January 2000), para 15; Case C-186/01, Dory v Germany (ECJ 11 March 2003), para 36.

  99. 99.

    Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000), para 18. However, the mere reference to the requirements of defence is not sufficient, ibid., para 21.

  100. 100.

    Case C-367/89, Richardt and Les Accessoires Scientifiques (ECJ 4 October 1991) para 22; Case C-83/94, Leifer and others (ECJ 17 October 1995) para 29; Case C-70/94, Werner v Germany (ECJ 17 October 1995), para 28.

  101. 101.

    Cf. Ludwigs, in Dauses/Ludwigs (2019), para 102.

  102. 102.

    Case 72/83, Campus Oil and others v Minister for Industry and Energy and others (ECJ 10 July 1984), para 35; C-398/98, Commission v. Greece (ECJ 25 October 2001), para 29.

  103. 103.

    Case C-483/99, Commission v France (ECJ 4 June 2002), para 47; Case C-503/99, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 4 June 2002), para 46; Case C-463/00, Commission v Spain (ECJ 13 May 2003), para 71; Case C-174/04, Commission v Italy (ECJ 2 June 2005), para 40; Case C-207/07, Commission v Spain (ECJ 17 July 2008), para 46; Case C-326/07, Commission v Italy (ECJ 26 March 2009), para 69; Case C-171/08, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 8 July 2010), para 72; Case C-543/08, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 11 November 2010), para 84. However, in most of these cases justification of the golden share rules failed for other reasons.

  104. 104.

    Case C-100/01, Ministre de l’Intérieur v Olazabal (ECJ 26 November 2002), para 35 (armed groups threatening public order); Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010), para 47 (organised trafficking in narcotic drugs); other instances are money laundering and terrorist financing, cf. Case C-212/11, Jyske Bank Gibraltar v Administración del Estado (ECJ 25 April 2013), para 62 (with regard to non-discriminating restrictions). See also Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 20.

  105. 105.

    Case C-266/96 Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others (ECJ 18 June 1998), para 60; Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, district Rotterdam v Sea-Land Service Inc. and Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (ECJ 13 June 2002) 41 et seq.

  106. 106.

    Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 45 et seq.; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 28; Case C-514/03, Commission v Spain (ECJ 26 January 2006), para 28.

  107. 107.

    Possibly because public health is much less of a blanket clause than public policy or public security and therefore does not call for such a clarification.

  108. 108.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 36; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 8.

  109. 109.

    Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others (v Saarland (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 19; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 11 and 16. For the free movement of goods: Case C-141/07, Commission v Germany (ECJ 11 September 2008), para 51. See also Barnard (2019), p. 492 et seq.

  110. 110.

    Case C-41/02, Commission v Netherlands (ECJ 2 December 2004), para 52; Case C-531/06, Commission v Italy (ECJ 19 May 2009), para 54; Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others v Saarland (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 30.

  111. 111.

    Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 486.

  112. 112.

    This Article has replaced Article 4 and Annex of Directive 64/221/EEC. Article 29 is not exhaustive in the sense that it does not preclude the public health derogation in other contexts beyond epidemic diseases, cf. Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 24.

  113. 113.

    Case C-158/96, Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 46.

  114. 114.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 10 et seq. Now the matter is largely regulated by Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare.

  115. 115.

    Case C-158/96, Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 46 et seq.; Case C-368/98, Vanbraekel and others v ANMC (ECJ 12 July 2001), para 47 et seq.; Case C-157/99, Smits und Peerbooms (ECJ 12 July 2001), para 72 et seq; Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré and van Riet (ECJ 13 May 2003), para 67, 73 and 80; Case C-372/04, Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health (ECJ 16 May 2006), para 103 et seq.; Case C-169/07, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (ECJ 10 March 2009) para 46; Case C-89/09, Commission v France (ECJ 16 December 2010), para 53; Case C-490/09, Commission v Luxemburg (ECJ 27 January 2011), para 43. See also Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 40 et seq.; Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 12.

  116. 116.

    In this respect, the ECJ goes quite far in accepting economic reasons as grounds of justification, see Oliver (2016), pp. 153 et seq.

  117. 117.

    Case C-108/96, Mac Quen and others (ECJ 1 February 2001) para 28 et seq.; Case C-496/01, Commission v France (ECJ 11 March 2004), para 66 et seq.; Case C-531/06, Commission v Italy (ECJ 19 May 2009), para 52; Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others v Saarland (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 28; Joined Cases C-570/07 and 571/07, Perez and Chao Gomez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios ( (ECJ 1 June 2010), para 64; Joined Cases C-159/12-161/12, Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and others (ECJ 5 December 2013) para 42.

  118. 118.

    Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 43.

  119. 119.

    Case C-153/08, Commission v Spain (ECJ 6 October 2009), para 40.

  120. 120.

    Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 14.

  121. 121.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 16; Smit and Herzog (1998), Article 56 TFEU para 56.05.

  122. 122.

    Joined Cases C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 95; Case C-441/02, Commission v Germany (ECJ 27 April 2006), para 107.

  123. 123.

    Joined Cases C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 97; Case C-441/02, Commission v Germany (ECJ 27 April 2006), para 107 et seq. See also Schneider (1998), pp. 185 et seq.; Barnard (2019), p. 488 et seq.

  124. 124.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 20.

  125. 125.

    Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 21 et seq.; Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 30.

  126. 126.

    Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 17; Case C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Ohranitelna politsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (ECJ 17 November 2011), para 41; Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 31. See also Barnard (2019), p. 489 et seq. and 494 et seq.

  127. 127.

    Case 48/75, Royer (ECJ 8 April 1976), para 62; now Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 31.2.

  128. 128.

    Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94, Sanz de Lera and others (ECJ 14 December 1995), para 23; Case C-503/99, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 4 June 2002), para 45; Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (ECJ 14 March 2000) para 18; Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04, Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA (C-151/04) and Durré (C-152/04) (ECJ 15 December 2005) para 39; Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor v Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008), para 29; Case C-509/12, IPTM v Navileme and Nautizende (ECJ 6 February 2014) para 18.

  129. 129.

    Frenz (2012), para 2572. See, e.g., Case C-161/07, Commission v Austria (ECJ 22 December 2008) para 36; Case C-509/12, IPTM v Navileme and Nautizende (ECJ 6 February 2014) para 21; Case C-215/03, Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (ECJ 17 February 2005), para 40.

  130. 130.

    Frenz (2012), para 2685.

  131. 131.

    Frenz (2012), para 2666; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 79.

  132. 132.

    Case C-243/01, Gambelli and others (ECJ 6 November 2003), para 67; Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04, Placania and others (ECJ 6 March 2007), para 53; Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media (ECJ 17 July 2008) para 39 et seq; Case C-169/07, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (ECJ 10 March 2009) para 55; Case C-316/07, Stoß v Wetteraukreis (ECJ 8 September 2010), para 83. See also Enchelmaier (2011), p. 642; Frenz (2012), para 2662 et seq.; Siekemeyer and Wendland, in Müller-Graff (2015), para 96.

  133. 133.

    White (2004), p. 87.

  134. 134.

    Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others (v Saarland (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 19 and 54; Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 26; Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 576; Enchelmaier (2011), p. 645.

  135. 135.

    Case C-108/96, Mac Quen and others (ECJ 1 February 2001) para 33 et seq.; Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Gräbner (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 46; Case C-514/03, Commission v Spain (ECJ 26 January 2006), para 49. For the free movement of goods: Case C-141/07, Commission v Germany (ECJ 11 September 2008), para 51.

  136. 136.

    Case C-400/08, Commission v Spain (ECJ 24 March 2011) para 75.

  137. 137.

    Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 19.

  138. 138.

    Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 483, referring to Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor v Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008), para 30; Case C-145/09, Land Baden Württemberg v Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010), para 56; Case C-137/09, Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (ECJ 16 December 2010) para 69 et seq.

  139. 139.

    Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 27.2; Case 67/74, Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln (ECJ 26 February 1975), para 6; Case 30/77, Regina v Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977), para 28; Case C-348/96, Donatella Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 24; Case C-340/97, Nazli v Stadt Nürnberg (ECJ 10 February 2000), para 58; Case C-482 and 493/01, Orfanopoulos and others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 67; Case C-441/02, Commission v Germany (ECJ 27 April 2006), para 70 and 93; Case C-503/03, Commission v. Spain (ECJ 31 January 2006), para 44/46; Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor v Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008), para 24. See also White (2004), pp. 91 et seq.

  140. 140.

    Case 41/74, van Duyn v Home Office (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 17.

  141. 141.

    Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 27.2.

  142. 142.

    Case C-100/01, Ministre de l’Intérieur v Olazabal (ECJ 26 November 2002), para 45.

  143. 143.

    Tiedje, in von der Groeben et al. (2015), Article 52 AEUV para 34; White (2004), p. 90; Korte, in Calliess and Ruffert (2016), Article 52 AEUV para 17; Barnard (2019), p. 487 et seq.

  144. 144.

    Directive 2004/38/EU, Article 22 following Case 36/75, Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 50. Likewise Forsthoff, in Grabitz et al. (2019), Article 52 AEUV para 27.

  145. 145.

    Bröhmer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Article 52 AEUV para 5.

  146. 146.

    Müller-Graff, in Streinz (2018), Article 52 AEUV para 22.

  147. 147.

    Council Directive 64/221/EEC on special measures justified on grounds of public policy, public securityor public health, O.J. 56/850 (1964).

  148. 148.

    Council Directive 75/35/EEC extending the scope of Directive No 64/221/EEC, O.J. L 14/14 (1975).

  149. 149.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, O.J. L 158/77 (2004). Interestingly, the Directive itself does not mention Article 52 (at the time: Article 46) among its legal bases although Article 27 et seq. clearly fall under this provision.

References

  • Barnard, C. (2019). The substantive law of the EU. The four freedoms (6th ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C., & Snell, J. (2017). Free movement of legal persons and the provision of service. In C. Barnard & S. Peers (Eds.), European Union law (2nd ed., pp. 409–446). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, P. (2000). International company law in view of the Centros decision of the ECJ. European Business Organization Law Review, 1(1), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV, Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (4th ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2016). EUV/AEUV, Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (5th ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. P., & de Búrca, G. (2015). EU law, text, cases, and materials (6th ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A., Dougan, M., Rodger, B., Spaventa, E., & Wyatt, D. (2011). Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union law (6th ed.). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enchelmaier, S. (2011). Always at your service (within limits): The ECJ’s case law on Article 56 TFEU (2006-11). European Law Review, 36(5), 615–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling, U. (1997). Das Niederlassungsrecht in der EG als Beschränkungsverbot, Tragweite und Grenzen. In W. Schön (Ed.), Gedächtnisschrift für Brigitte Knobbe-Keuk (pp. 607–625). Cologne: Schmidt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsthoff, U. (2001). Die Tragweite des Rechtfertigungsgrundes aus Art. 46 Abs. 1 EG für die Niederlassungsfreiheit, die Dienstleistungsfreiheit und für Gesellschaften. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 12(2), 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, N. (2018). EU law (6th ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz, W. (2012). Handbuch Europarecht (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R., Khan, D. E., & Kotzur, M. (Eds.). (2015). European Union Treaties. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (Eds.). (2019). Das Recht der Europäischen Union (loose-leaf collection). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner, K. (2004). Die Unionsbürgerrichtlinie und der ordre public. Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik, 24(9), 299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobe, S. (2017). Europarecht (9th ed.). Munich: Vahlen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, C. O., & Borchardt, K.-D. (Eds.). (2012). EU-Verträge Kommentar (6th ed.). Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenze, A. (2002). Europäische Niederlassungsfreiheit und Prostitution: Anmerkung zur EuGH-Rechtsprechung. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift, 29(5–8), 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwigs, M. (2019). E. Niederlassungs- und Dienstleistungsfreiheit, E.I. Grundregeln. In M. Dauses & M. Ludwigs (Eds.), EU-Wirtschaftsrecht (loose-leaf collection). Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P. (2016). When, if ever, can restrictions on fee movement be justified on economic grounds? European Law Review, 41(2), 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, T., Classen, C. D., & Nettesheim, M. (2018). Europarecht (8th ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, T. (2011). EU regulatory approaches to cross-border mergers: Exercising the right of establishment. European Law Review, 36(1), 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlachter, M., & Ohler, C. (Eds.). (2008). Europäische Dienstleistungsrichtlinie, Handkommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, H. (1998). Die öffentliche Ordnung als Schranke der Grundfreiheiten im EG-Vertrag. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, W. (2019). Grundkurs Europarecht (6th ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2019). EU-Kommentar (4th ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siekemeyer, A.-K., & Wendland, H. M. (2015). Die binnenmarktliche Niederlassungsfreiheit der Selbständigen. In P.-C. Müller-Graff (Ed.), Europäisches Wirtschaftsordnungsrecht (pp. 159–208). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, H., & Herzog, P. E. (1998). The law of the European Economic Community, a commentary on the EEC Treaty. New York: Matthew Bender.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R. (Ed.). (2018). EUV/AEUV, Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (3rd ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje, C. (2014). Niederlassungsfreiheit. In D. Ehlers (Ed.), Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten (pp. 383–416). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trstenjak, V., & Beysen, E. (2013). The growing overlap of fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights in the case law of the CJEU. European Law Review, 38(3), 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, C., & Heintschel von Heinegg, W. (Eds.). (2018). Europäisches Unionsrecht, EUV, AEUV, Grundrechte-Charta (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • von der Groeben, H., Schwarze, J., & Hatje, A. (Eds.). (2015). Europäisches Unionsrecht. Commentary. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, F., & Wooldridge, F. (2007). Free movement of persons within the European Community (2nd ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. C. A. (2004). Workers, establishment, and services in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Will, M. (2013). Europarecht. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Sebastian von Graf Kielmansegg

Authors
  1. Sebastian von Graf Kielmansegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian von Graf Kielmansegg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Università degli Studi di Teramo, Teramo, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

List of Cases

List of Cases

  • ECJ 04.12.1974, 41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office [cit. in paras 2, 18, 22, 25, 45]

  • ECJ 26.02.1975, 67/74, Carmelo Angelo Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln [cit. in paras 2, 45]

  • ECJ 28.10.1975, 36/75, Roland Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur [cit. in paras 2, 23, 46]

  • ECJ 08.04.1976, 48/75, Royer [cit. in paras 31, 41]

  • ECJ 07.07.1976, 118/75, Watson [cit. in para 31]

  • ECJ 27.10.1977, 30/77, Regina v Bouchereau [cit. in paras 22, 45]

  • ECJ 18.05.1982, 115, 116/81, Adoui & Cornuaille v Belgium [cit. in paras 18, 22, 25]

  • ECJ 10.07.1984, 72/83, Campus Oil and Others v Minister for Industry and Energy and Others [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 07.05.1986, 131/85, Gül v Regierungspräsident Düsseldorf [cit. in para 18]

  • ECJ 10.07.1986, 79/85, D. H. M. Segers v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank [cit in paras 9, 30]

  • ECJ 26.04.1988, 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and Others v The Netherlands State [cit. in paras 9, 30]

  • ECJ 18.05.1989, 249/86, Commission v Germany [cit. in paras 23, 31]

  • ECJ 05.12.1989, C-3/88, Commission v Italy [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 05.02.1991, C-363/89, Danielle Roux v Belgian State [cit. in paras 2, 31]

  • ECJ 18.06.1991, C-260/89, ERT AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and Others [cit. in para 2]

  • ECJ 25.07.1991, C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and Others v Commissariaat voor de Media [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 25 July 1991, C-353/89, Commission v Netherlands [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 04.10.1991, C-367/89, Richardt and Les Accessoires Scientifiques [cit. in paras 2, 32, 34]

  • ECJ 28.01.1992, C-204/90, Bachmann v Belgium [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 16.12.1992, C-211/91, Commission v Belgium [cit. in paras 16, 30]

  • ECJ 04.05.1993, C-17/92, Cinematograficos v Spain [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 17.10.1995, C-83/94, Leifer and Others [cit. in paras 2, 32, 34]

  • ECJ 17.10.1995, C-70/94, Werner v Germany [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 14.11.1995, C-484/93, Peter Svensson and Lena Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de l’Urbanisme [cit. in paras 9, 12, 30]

  • ECJ 30.11.1995, C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 14.12.1995, C-163/94, C-165/94, and C-250/94, Sanz de Lera and Others [cit. in para 42]

  • ECJ 15.05.1997, C-250/95, Futura Participations SA v Administration des contributions [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 17.06.1997, C-65/95, C-111/95, Shingara and Radiom v The Queen [cit. in para 18]

  • ECJ 28.04.1998, C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie [cit. in paras 2, 9, 24, 38, 45]

  • ECJ 07.05.1998, C-350/96, Clean Car v Landeshauptmann von Wien [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 18.06.1998, C-266/96 Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and Others [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 16.07.1998, C-264/96, ICI v Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) [cit. in paras 9, 30]

  • ECJ 29.10.1998, C-114/97, Commission v Spain [cit. in paras 9, 18, 23, 24, 34]

  • ECJ 19.01.1999, C-348/96, Donatella Calfa [cit. in paras 2, 23, 28, 29]

  • ECJ 02.03.1999, C-416/96, El-Yassini v Secretary of State for the Home Department [cit. in para 18]

  • ECJ 09.03.1999, C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs [cit. in paras 9, 30]

  • ECJ 29.04.1999, C-224/97, Erich Ciola v Land Vorarlberg [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 29.04.1999, C-311/97, Royal Bank of Scotland v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 08.07.1999, C-254/97, Baxter and Others v Premier Ministre and Others [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 26.10.1999, C-273/97, Sirdar v The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defence [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 11.01.2000, C-285/98, Kreil v Germany [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 10.02.2000, C-340/97, Nazli v Stadt Nürnberg [cit. in para 45]

  • ECJ 09.03.2000, C-355/98, Commission v Belgium [cit. in paras 2, 18, 23, 24, 34]

  • ECJ 14.03.2000, C-54/99, Association Eglise de scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister [cit. in paras 2, 22, 23, 41, 42]

  • ECJ 13.07.2000, C-423/98, Albore [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 23.11.2000, C-421/98, Commission v Spain [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 01.02.2001, C-108/96, Dennis Mac Quen and Others [cit. in paras 14, 39, 44]

  • ECJ 13.03.2001, C-379/98, PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 08.03.2001, C-405/98, Konsumentombudsmannen v GIP [cit. in para 14]

  • ECJ 12.07.2001, C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 12.07.2001, C-368/98, Vanbraekel and Others v ANMC [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 27.09.2001, C-63/99, The Queen v Gloszczuk [cit. in para 18]

  • ECJ 25.10.2001, C-398/98, Commission v. Greece [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 20.11.2001, C-268/99, Jany and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [cit. in paras 22, 25]

  • ECJ 04.06.2002, C-503/99, Commission v Belgium [cit. in paras 22, 34, 42]

  • ECJ 04.06.2002, C-483/99, Commission v France [cit. in paras 22, 34]

  • ECJ 13.06.2002, C-430/99, C-431/99, Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, District Rotterdam v Sea-Land Service Inc. and Nedlloyd Lijnen BV [cit. in paras 14, 34]

  • ECJ 11.07.2002, C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner [cit. in paras 14, 39, 44]

  • ECJ 25.07.2002, C-459/99, MRAX v Belgium [cit. in para 31]

  • ECJ 05.11.2002, C-208/00, Überseering BV v NCC [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 05.11.2002, C-476/98, Commission v Germany [cit. in paras 23, 29]

  • ECJ 21.11.2002, C-436/00, X and Y v Riksskatteverket [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 26.11.2002, C-100/01, Ministre de l’Intérieur v Olazabal [cit. in paras 18, 23, 34, 46]

  • ECJ 16.01.2003, C-388/01 Commission v Italy [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 11.03.2003, C-186/01, Dory v Germany [cit. in paras 32, 34]

  • ECJ 13.05.2003, C-385/99, Müller-Fauré & van Riet [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 13.05.2003, C-463/00, Commission v Spain [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 18.09.2003, C-168/01, Bosal Holding v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 06.11.2003, C-243/01, Gambelli and Others [cit. in paras 30, 43]

  • ECJ 13.11.2003, C-42/02, Lindmann [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 11.03.2004, C-496/01, Commission v France [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 29.04.2004, C-482, C-493/01, Georgios Orfanopoulos and Others and Raffaele Oliveri v Land Baden-Württemberg [cit. in paras 2, 23, 28, 29, 40, 45]

  • ECJ 07.09.2004, C-319/02, Manninen [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 14.10.2004, C-299/02, Commission v Netherlands [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 14.10.2004, C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [cit. in paras 22, 29]

  • ECJ 17.02.2005, C-215/03, Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie [cit. in paras 31, 42]

  • ECJ 02.06.2005, C-174/04, Commission v Italy [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 13.12.2005, C-411/03, SEVIC [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 13.12.2005, C-446/03, Marks & Spencer v David Halsey (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) [cit. in para 30]

  • ECJ 15.12.2005, Joined Cases C-151/04, C-152/04, Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA and Jean-Pascal Durré [cit. in paras 14, 42]

  • ECJ 26.01.2006, C-514/03, Commission v Spain [cit. in paras 24, 34, 44]

  • ECJ 31.01.2006, C-503/03, Commission v. Spain [cit. in paras 28, 45]

  • ECJ 30.03.2006, C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti v Giuseppe Calafiori [cit. in para 16]

  • ECJ 27.04.2006, C-441/02, Commission v Germany [cit. in paras 40, 45]

  • ECJ 16.05.2006, C-372/04, Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 06.03.2007, C-338/04, C-359/04, C-360/04, Placania and Others [cit. in para 43]

  • ECJ 11.12.2007, C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking [cit. in para 10]

  • ECJ 10.07.2008, C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor – Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti v Gheorghe Jipa [cit. in paras 22, 23, 42, 45]

  • ECJ 17.07.2008, C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media [cit. in paras 14, 43]

  • ECJ 17.07.2008, C-207/07, Commission v Spain [cit. in paras 23, 34]

  • ECJ 11.09.2008, C-141/07, Commission v Germany [cit. in paras 36, 44]

  • ECJ 22.12.2008, C-161/07, Commission v Austria [cit. in paras 2, 9, 23, 30, 42]

  • ECJ 10.03.2009, C-169/07, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung [cit. in paras 14, 38, 43]

  • ECJ 26.03.2009, C-326/07, Commission v Italy [cit. in paras 23, 34]

  • ECJ 19.05.2009, C-171/07, C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others and Helga Neumann-Seiwert v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales [cit. in paras 14, 36, 39, 44]

  • ECJ 19.05.2009, C-531/06, Commission v Italy [cit. in paras 36, 39]

  • ECJ 06.10.2009, C-153/08, Commission v Spain [cit. in paras 16, 39]

  • ECJ 21.01.2010, C-546/07, Commission v Germany [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 10.03.2010, C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano [cit. in para 14]

  • ECJ 01.06.2010, C-570/07, 571/07, Blanco Perez and Chao Gomez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and Principado de Asturias [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 08.07.2010, C-171/08, Commission v Portugal [cit. in paras 22, 34]

  • ECJ 08.09.2010, C-316/07, Stoß v Wetteraukreis [cit. in para 43]

  • ECJ 09.09.2010, 64/08, Ernst Engelmann [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 11.11.2010, C-543/08, Commission v Portugal [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 23.11.2010, C-145/09, Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis [cit. in paras 2, 29, 32, 34, 45]

  • ECJ 16.12.2010, C-137/09, Marc Michel Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht [cit. in paras 14, 15, 29, 45]

  • ECJ 16.12.2010, C-89/09, Commission v France [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 27.01.2011, C-490/09, Commission v Luxemburg [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 24.03.2011, C-400/08, Commission v Spain [cit. in para 44]

  • ECJ 17.11.2011, C-434/10, Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti [cit. in paras 22, 23, 24]

  • ECJ 17.11.2011, C-430/10, Gaydarov v Direktor na Glavna direktsia “Ohranitelna politsia” pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti [cit. in paras 22, 23, 28, 29, 41]

  • ECJ 25.04.2013, C-212/11, Jyske Bank Gibraltar v Administración del Estado [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 26.09.2013, C-539/11, Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara [cit. in para 14]

  • ECJ 05.12.2013, C-159/12, Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others and Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others [cit. in paras 14, 39]

  • ECJ 06.02.2014, C-509/12, IPTM v Navileme – Consultadoria Náutica Lda and Nautizende – Consultadoria Náutica Lda [cit. in paras 14, 15, 42]

  • ECJ 16.06.2015, C-593/13, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA and Others [cit. in para 5]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

von Graf Kielmansegg, S. (2021). Article 52 [Special Provision on Public Policy, Public Security, or Public Health]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – A Commentary. Springer Commentaries on International and European Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_53

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_53

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43509-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43511-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation