Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 62 [Application of the Rules on the Right of Establishment]

(ex-Article 55 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))

  • 1756 Accesses

Abstract

Article 62 TFEU makes a referral to Articles 51 to 54 TFEU, located within the chapter on the right of establishment. Therefore, there are no changes with respect to ex-Article 55 TEC, or even with respect to the Treaty of Rome, which already included this provision (Article 66 TEEC). The similar structure of these two fundamental freedoms, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, justifies the extension to the latter of the legal regime applicable to the former as the beneficiaries and the activities carried out, from a material point of view, are the same. As indicated before (➔ Article 56 TFEU para 26), the legal regime applicable to the freedom to provide services finds two types of exceptions expressly set out in primary law, which correspond to a balance between the EU requirements for free movement and the general interests of MSs. These interests are identified in the exclusion of activities that are connected to the exercise of official authority, according to Article 51.1 TFEU (➔ para 3), and in the exceptions to the application of EU law in those cases justified for reasons of public policy, public security, or public health, according to Article 52.1 TFEU (➔ para 16), both applicable due to the referral made by Article 62 TFEU, giving rise to a regime of exclusion and exception, respectively.

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.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 222 et seqq.

  2. 2.

    Parliament/Council Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, O.J. L 255/22 (2005).

  3. 3.

    Huglo (2000), p. 7, who considers that, to the extent that prerogatives of official authority are present, there would be no provision of services, which in our opinion implies a reduction in the concept of service provision that is not supported by any case law.

  4. 4.

    This is the position stated by AG Mayras in several cases, see Case 152/73, Sotgiu (Opinion of AG Mayras of 5 December 1973) para 170. See also Lenz (1989), pp. 106–107.

  5. 5.

    Barnard (2016), p. 473; Craig and De Búrca (2015), p. 799; Kapteyn and Verloren van Themaat (1998), p. 739.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Case C-283/99, Commission v Italy (ECJ 31 May 2001) para 25.

  7. 7.

    Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 17 December 1980) p. 3890.

  8. 8.

    Martín y Pérez de Nanclares (1999), pp. 113–114.

  9. 9.

    European Parliament, Résolution sur la définition des notions d’administration publique et d’autorité publique dans les États membres et sur les conséquences de cette définition pour l’application des articles 48 paragraphe 4 et 55 du traité instituant la CEE, O.J. C 10/4 (1972).

  10. 10.

    Millán Moro (1988), p. 181.

  11. 11.

    Lenz (1989), pp. 89–90; Handoll (1988), p. 226.

  12. 12.

    Barnard (2016), p. 470, who speaks of a “Union definition”.

  13. 13.

    Lyon-Caen (1984), p. 288.

  14. 14.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974) para 48.

  15. 15.

    While Lenz (1989), pp. 91–92, considers that this way of integrating the concept of official authority and public service makes them “mixed” notions, Handoll (1988), p. 232, is sceptical about the latter interpretation.

  16. 16.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974) para 43; Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 17 December 1980) para 19; Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 23; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 28; Case C-157/09, Commission v Netherlands (ECJ 1 December 2011) para 56.

  17. 17.

    Case C-151/14, Commission v Latvia (ECJ 10 September 2015) para 73, where the Court states that “it is by reference to the nature of the relevant activities themselves, not by reference to [the] status [of notaries] as such, that it must be ascertained whether those activities fall within the exception in the first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU”. See also Druesne (1981), p. 289.

  18. 18.

    Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 17 December 1980) para 19.

  19. 19.

    Lenz (1989), p. 95.

  20. 20.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974) para 45, where the Court required “a direct and specific connexion with the exercise of official authority.”

  21. 21.

    Barnard (2016), p. 473, who considers that the functional approach is even clearer in the case of Article 51 TFEU.

  22. 22.

    Case 307/84, Commission v France (ECJ 3 June 1986) para 12, as regards a state nurse; Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum (ECJ 3 July 1986) para 27, as regards a teacher; Case 225/85, Commission v Italy (ECJ 16 June 1987) para 27, as regards a researcher; Case 33/88, Allué and others (ECJ 30 May 1989) para 7, as regards a foreign-language assistant in a university.

  23. 23.

    Case C-3/88, Commission v Italy (ECJ 5 December 1989) para 13, as regards a job on design, programming and operation of data-processing systems; Case C-306/89, Commission v Greece (ECJ 10 December 1991) para 7, as regards a road traffic accident expert; Case C-438/08, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 22 October 2009) as regards a vehicle inspector.

  24. 24.

    Barnard (2016), p. 471; Segura Serrano (2003), p. 116.

  25. 25.

    Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum (ECJ 3 July 1986), p. 2134.

  26. 26.

    Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum (Opinion of AG Lenz 29 April 1986) p. 2135; Case 225/85, Commission v Italy (Opinion of AG Lenz 27 January 1987) para 25; Case 33/88, Allué and others (Opinion of AG Lenz 14 February 1989) para 12.

  27. 27.

    Case 307/84, Commission v France (Opinion of AG Mancini 15 April 1986) p. 1730, where the AG literally states “and (not ‘or’—both requirements must be satisfied).”

  28. 28.

    Handoll (1988), p. 234.

  29. 29.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (Opinion of AG Mayras 28 May 1974) p. 664.

  30. 30.

    Case 307/84, Commission v France (Opinion of AG Mancini 15 April 1986) p. 1732, who, from a stricter approach, considers that “[t]hose who occupy the post must don full battle dress”.

  31. 31.

    Case C-114/97, Commission v Spain (ECJ 29 October 1998) para 37; Case C-355/98, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 9 March 2000) para 26; Case C-283/99, Commission v Italy (ECJ 31 May 2001) para 20; Case C-465/05, Commission v Italy (ECJ 13 December 2007) para 40, where the Court stated that merely making a contribution to the maintenance of public security, which any individual may be called upon to do, does not constitute exercise of official authority.

  32. 32.

    Case C-392/15, Commission v Czech Republic (ECJ 1 February 2017) para 139; Case C-151/14, Commission v Latvia (ECJ 10 September 2015) para 73; Case C-61/08, Commission v Greece (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 106; Case C-54/08, Commission v Germany (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 110; Case C-53/08, Commission v Austria (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 112; Case C-51/08, Commission v Luxembourg (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 116; Case C-50/08, Commission v France (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 99; Case C-47/08, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 24 May 2011) para 117, where the Court stated that notaries practise their profession in conditions of competition, which is not characteristic of the exercise of official authority.

  33. 33.

    Handoll (1988), pp. 234–235.

  34. 34.

    Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum (ECJ 3 July 1986) para 28, where the Court refers to the “very strict” conditions of this exclusion, this being a case on a field of social character such as education.

  35. 35.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 147; Segura Serrano (2003), p. 117.

  36. 36.

    Segura Serrano (2003), p. 117.

  37. 37.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974) para 45.

  38. 38.

    Case C-42/92, Thijssen (ECJ 13 July 1993) para 22; Case C-404/05, Commission v Germany (“inspection of organic production”) (ECJ 29 November 2007) para 38; Case C-438/08 Commission v Portugal (“road inspection”) (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 37; Case C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and Others (ECJ 15 October 2015) para 60.

  39. 39.

    Case 2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974) para 47.

  40. 40.

    Council Directive 64/224/EEC concerning the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of intermediaries in commerce, industry and small craft industries, O.J. 56/869 (1964), English special edition: Series I Volume 1963–1964 p. 126; Council Directive 73/183/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of self- employed activities of banks and other financial institutions, O.J. L 194/1 (1973). Furthermore, this is the method that had been recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly of the EEC in its draft opinion on the General Programme for the suppression of restrictions on the freedom to provide services, O.J. P 24/558, p. 560; see Schmidt (1996), p. 21.

  41. 41.

    Case C-47/02, Anker and others (ECJ 30 September 2003) para 63; Case C-405/01, Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española (ECJ 30 September 2003) para 45.

  42. 42.

    Case C-89/07, Commission v France (ECJ 11 March 2008); Case C-447/07, Commission v Italy (ECJ 11 September 2008); Case C-94/08, Commission v Spain (ECJ 20 November 2008).

  43. 43.

    Wyatt, in Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 571.

  44. 44.

    Case 225/85, Commission v Italy (ECJ 16 June 1987); see Handoll (1988), p. 235.

  45. 45.

    In this regard, Lenz (1989), p. 104, recognises that the welfare area, that is, the provision of public services, would be partially included in the general interest thus understood, especially in those States that are welfare States by constitutional imperative, such as Germany (Article 20 of the Basic Law). The same could apply to Spain, whose Constitution of 1978 provides in Article 1.1, “Spain is hereby established as a social and democratic State.”

  46. 46.

    Druesne (1981), p. 295.

  47. 47.

    Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium (Opinion of AG Mayras of 24 September 1980) p. 3911.

  48. 48.

    Mancini (1993), p. 815.

  49. 49.

    Commission Communication Freedom of movement of workers and access to employment in the public service of the Member States — Commission action in respect of the application of Article 48 (4) of the EEC Treaty, O.J. C 72/2 (1988). This Communication defined in the first place the limits to the exclusion based on the case law, adopting a functional criterion (public service posts are those carried out within the armed forces, the police, etc.). On the other hand, the Commission described those sectors in which it intended to bring about enforcement proceedings for not being covered by the exclusion (among which the management of services of a commercial nature, from public transport to telecommunications, but also the public health area, etc.). See Case C-290/94, Commission v Greece (ECJ 2 July 1996) as regards many different kind of posts; Case C-473/93, Commission v Luxembourg (ECJ 2 July 1996) para 35, as regards teachers.

  50. 50.

    Commission Communication Free movement of workers - achieving the full benefits and potential, COM(2002) 694.

  51. 51.

    In fact, the Court has argued sometimes as if the exceptions to freedom of movement formed a unitary whole, see e.g. Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 18–20; Case C-273/97, Sirdar (ECJ 26 October 1999) para 17; Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000) para 18.

  52. 52.

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

  53. 53.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 7 and 21.

  54. 54.

    Segura Serrano (2003), p. 120; cf. Hatzopoulos (1999), pp. 283–285.

  55. 55.

    Case C-145/09, Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010) para 43–44, where the Court resorted to the case law on the free movement of goods in order to define public security to be applied in the field of free movement of persons.

  56. 56.

    As may be derived from the Simmenthal ruling and the corresponding case law: Case 35/76, Simmenthal (ECJ 10 November 1976) para 24; Case 5/77, Tedeschi (ECJ 15 September 1977) para 34; Case 148/78, Ratti (ECJ 5 April 1979) para 36.

  57. 57.

    Masclet (1997), p. 4, who, following a teleological interpretation, argued that in the area of free movement of goods, current Article 36 TFEU does not establish a reservation of exclusive and definitive jurisdiction for the benefit of MS.

  58. 58.

    See e.g. Case 148/78, Ratti (ECJ 5 April 1979) para 36; Case 251/78, Denkavit (ECJ 8 November 1979) para 14. See Masclet (1997), p. 5; Kapteyn and Verloren van Themaat (1998), p. 652; Mattera (1991), p. 279 et seqq.; Lenaerts (1988), p. 502.

  59. 59.

    Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, O.J. 56/850 (1964).

  60. 60.

    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).

  61. 61.

    Case C-375/17, Stanley International Betting (ECJ 19 December 2018) para 41; Case C-375/14, Laezza (ECJ 28 January 2016) para 31; Case C-463/13, Stanley International Betting (ECJ 22 January 2015) para 47; Case C-156/13, Digibet (ECJ 12 June 2014) para 22; Case C-470/11, Garkalns (ECJ 19 July 2012) para 35; Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (ECJ 8 September 2009) para 55; Case C-67/98, Zenatti (ECJ 21 October 1999) para 29; Case C-124/97, Läärä (21 September 1999), para 35.

  62. 62.

    Case C-158/96, Kohll (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 50–51; Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms (ECJ 12 July 2001) para 73–74; Case C-368/98, Vanbraekel (12 July 2001) para 48–49; Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré and van Riet (13 May 2003) para 67; Case C-262/02, Commission v France (“alcohol tv advertising”) (ECJ 13 July 2004) para 23; Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética (ECJ 17 July 2008) para 37 (although in most of this case law the Court referred to overriding reasons together with Article 52.1 TFEU).

  63. 63.

    Case C-421/98, Commission v Spain (“architects”) (ECJ 23 November 2000) para 41–42, where the Court held: “So far as application of Article [52] of the Treaty to the present situation is concerned, it should be borne in mind that that provision is not designed to reserve certain matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of Member States but permits national laws to derogate from the principle of free movement to the extent to which such derogation is and continues to be justified for the attainment of the objectives referred to in that article […] Where [EU] directives provide for harmonisation of the measures necessary to ensure the protection of a specific objective, recourse to Article [52] of the Treaty is no longer justified”.

  64. 64.

    Segura Serrano (2003), p. 122.

  65. 65.

    Cerexhe, in Constantinesco et al. (1992), Article 56, p. 296.

  66. 66.

    Cf. Lirola Delgado (1994), pp. 163–164.

  67. 67.

    Kapteyn and Verloren van Themaat (1998), p. 710.

  68. 68.

    Barnard (2016), p. 467.

  69. 69.

    An Annex to Directive 64/221 stated the diseases that may justify its invocation (infectious or contagious diseases, according to the World Health Organisation’s corresponding Regulation). Section A.4 of the said Annex would allow States to invoke other diseases, on the basis of the non-discrimination treatment. Article 29 of Directive 2004/38 now states that diseases included are those with epidemic potential as defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organization, but also other diseases, on the basis of the non-discrimination treatment.

  70. 70.

    Case 131/85, Gül (ECJ 7 May 1986) para 17.

  71. 71.

    Segura Serrano (2002), p. 561.

  72. 72.

    Cf. Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 725.

  73. 73.

    See Case C-158/96, Kohll (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 50–51; Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms (ECJ 12 July 2001) para 73–74; Case C-368/98, Vanbraekel (12 July 2001) para 48–49; Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré and van Riet (ECJ 13 May 2003) para 67; Case C-372/04, Watts (ECJ 16 May 2006) para 104; Case C-169/07, Hartlauer (ECJ 10 March 2009) para 46; Case C-173/09, Elchinov (ECJ 5 October 2010) para 42; Case C-490/09, Commission v Luxembourg (ECJ 27 January 2011) para 43. This field has been regulated by Parliament/Council Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, O.J. L 88/45 (2011).

  74. 74.

    Case C-108/96, Mac Quen (ECJ 1 February 2001) para 28–30.

  75. 75.

    Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes (ECJ 19 May 2009) para 30–32.

  76. 76.

    Case C-570/07, Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez (ECJ 1 June 2010) para 65. See also Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini (ECJ 5 December 2013) para 41.

  77. 77.

    Section B of Annex to Directive 64/221 set out: “Diseases and disabilities which might threaten public policy or public security: 1. Drug addiction; 2. Profound mental disturbance; manifest conditions of psychotic disturbance with agitation, delirium, hallucinations or confusion.”

  78. 78.

    Commission Communication on guidance for better transposition and application of 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, COM (2009) 313 final, para 3.1.

  79. 79.

    Case 72/83, Campus Oil and Others (ECJ 10 July 1984) para 34 and 35; Case 222/84, Johnston (ECJ 15 May 1986) para 26; Case C-367/89, Richardt (ECJ 4 October 1991) para 22; Case C-83/94, Leifer (ECJ 17 October 1995) para 26; Case C-273/97, Sirdar (ECJ 26 October 1999) para 17; Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000) para 18 and 22.

  80. 80.

    Case C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France (ECJ 18 June 1998) para 60; Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99, Sea-Land Service (ECJ 13 June 2002) para 41–42.

  81. 81.

    Kostakopoulou-Dochery and Ferreira (2013–2014), p. 173.

  82. 82.

    Case C-145/09, Tsakouridis (ECJ 23 November 2010) para 47; Case C-348/09, P.I. (ECJ 22 May 2012) para 28.

  83. 83.

    Segura Serrano (2003), p. 124.

  84. 84.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18; Case 30/77, Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977) para 34.

  85. 85.

    Case C-348/09, P.I. (ECJ 22 May 2012) para 22.

  86. 86.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18, where the Court states that “the particular circumstances justifying recourse to the concept of public policy may vary from one country to another and from one period to another.”

  87. 87.

    Case C-268/99, Jany (ECJ 20 November 2001) para 60.

  88. 88.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18; Case 36/75, Rutili (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 27; Case 30/77, Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977) para 33; Case C-33/07 Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008) para 23; Case C-430/10 Gaydarov (ECJ 17 November 2011) para 32; Case C-434/10 Aladzhov (ECJ 17 November 2011) para 34; and Case C-348/09, P.I. (ECJ 22 May 2012) para 23.

  89. 89.

    Cf. Wyatt, in Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 483, who considers that in more recent years the Court has been more open to accept the pleadings of MS.

  90. 90.

    Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders (ECJ 26 April 1988) para 34.

  91. 91.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974) para 18; Case 36/75, Rutili (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 27; Case 30/77, Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977) para 33.

  92. 92.

    Case 157/79, Pieck (ECJ 3 July 1980) para 8–9; Case 321/87, Commission v Belgium (ECJ 27 April 1989) para 10; Case C-363/89, Roux (ECJ 5 February 1991) para 31.

  93. 93.

    Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders (ECJ 26 April 1988) para 34; Case C-288/89, Gouda (ECJ 25 July 1991) para 11; Case C-353/89, Commission v The Netherlands (“Mediawet”) (ECJ 25 July 1991) para 15; Case C-17/92, Fedicine (ECJ 4 May 1993) para 16; Case C-224/97, Ciola (ECJ 29 April 1999) para 16; Case C-384/08, Attanasio Group (ECJ 11 March 2010) para 55.

  94. 94.

    Case 131/85, Gül (ECJ 7 May 1986) para 17; Case C-158/96, Kohll (ECJ 28 April 1998) para 46; 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.

  95. 95.

    Case 30/77, Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977) para 28; Case C-430/10 Gaydarov (ECJ 17 November 2011) para 38.

  96. 96.

    Case C-67/74, Bonsignore (ECJ 26 May 1975) para 7.

  97. 97.

    Case C-67/74, Bonsignore (ECJ 26 May 1975) para 7; Case C-249/86, Commission v Germany (ECJ 18 May 1989) para 18.

  98. 98.

    Cf. Mancini (1993), p. 812, who considers that it is not easy to justify the danger of a behaviour in purely individual terms when, as is almost always the case, the danger for which one wants to punish lies in the ability of that behaviour to express socially disapproved collective tendencies or in the possibility for them being imitated by other individuals.

  99. 99.

    Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders (ECJ 26 April 1988) para 36; See Case C-100/01, Oteiza Olazábal (ECJ 26 November 2002) para 41, where the ECJ justified a less severe measure such as a partial restriction of the right of residence.

  100. 100.

    Case 36/75, Rutili (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 28. In a case where the free movement of capital was being violated, the Court, once again demonstrating its unitary approach to the exceptions to the freedoms of movement, understood that the public security ground can only be accepted if there are “real, specific and serious risks”, see Case C-423/98, Albore (ECJ 13 July 2000) para 22.

  101. 101.

    Case C-33/07, Jipa (ECJ 10 July 2008) para 23.

  102. 102.

    Case 30/77, Bouchereau (ECJ 27 October 1977) para 35.

  103. 103.

    Case 36/75, Rutili (ECJ 28 October 1975) para 32, where the Court states that those provisions “provide, in identical terms, that no restrictions in the interests of national security or public safety shall be placed on the rights secured by the above-quoted articles other than such as are necessary for the protection of those interests ‘in a democratic society’.”

  104. 104.

    Hall (1991), pp. 485 and 488.

  105. 105.

    Segura Serrano (2003), p. 127.

  106. 106.

    Case C-260/89, ERT (ECJ 18 June 1991) para 43.

  107. 107.

    Case C-60/00, Carpenter (ECJ 11 July 2002) para 43. In this case, in which Ms Carpenter’s expulsion order for reasons of public policy and public safety was considered, Mr Carpenter being a provider of intra-EU services from the United Kingdom, the Court held that that expulsion order amounted to interference with Mr. Carpenter’s right to respect for family life, within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR, which in turn “does not strike a fair balance between the competing interests”.

  108. 108.

    Joined Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01, Orfanopoulos (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 97–98.

  109. 109.

    Case C-36/02, Omega (ECJ 14 October 2004) para 33–34, and 36.

  110. 110.

    Case 41/74, Van Duyn (ECJ 4 December 1974).

  111. 111.

    Barav (1977), pp. 731–732.

  112. 112.

    Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui and Cornuaille (ECJ 18 May 1982) para 9.

  113. 113.

    Demaret and Ernst de la Graete (1983), pp. 293–294, who speak of squaring the circle.

  114. 114.

    Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui and Cornuaille (ECJ 18 May 1982) para 7; Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-111/95, Shingara and Radiom (ECJ 17 June 1997) para 28.

  115. 115.

    See e.g. Case C-348/96, Calfa (ECJ 19 January 1999) para 20, where the Court states that Article 52 TFEU “permits Member States to adopt, with respect to nationals of other Member States, and in particular on the grounds of public policy, measures which they cannot apply to their own nationals, inasmuch as they have no authority to expel the latter from the territory or to deny them access thereto”.

  116. 116.

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

  117. 117.

    Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market, COM(2004) 2 final/3.

  118. 118.

    Weatherill (2007), p. 5, who highlights that the Commission draft did not embrace a truly pure country-of-origin principle.

  119. 119.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 257.

  120. 120.

    Barnard (2008), pp. 329–330.

  121. 121.

    de Witte (2007), p. 8.

  122. 122.

    Craig and De Búrca (2015), p. 850.

  123. 123.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 258.

  124. 124.

    Barnard (2008), p. 325.

  125. 125.

    Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 842.

  126. 126.

    Commission Communication, Towards a better functioning Single Market for services – building on the results of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive, COM(2011)20 final; Stelkens et al. (2012).

  127. 127.

    Barnard (2016), p. 429.

  128. 128.

    Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 842.

  129. 129.

    Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16, X (ECJ 30 January 2018) para 82.

  130. 130.

    Case C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi (ECJ 20 December 2017) para 43; also Case C-320/16, Uber France (ECJ 10 April 2018), where the Court has stated that services like those offered by Uber are out of the Directive’s scope. See Adamski (2018), p. 745, who considers that the Court’s line of argument is wrong, as it does not take into account the different legal outcome deriving from the applicability of the right of establishment.

  131. 131.

    Case C-57/12, Femarbel (ECJ 11 July 2013) para 43–44.

  132. 132.

    European Commission (2007), p. 10.

  133. 133.

    Case C-33/17, Čepelnik (ECJ 13 November 2018), para 31, where the Court states that the Directive “defines ‘labour law’ broadly”.

  134. 134.

    Case C-438/05, Viking (ECJ 11 December 2007); Case C-341/05, Laval (ECJ 18 December 2007).

  135. 135.

    Wyatt (2011), in Dashwood et al., p. 602; Cf. Van Rijn (2017), p. 211, who considers that case law is needed in order to avoid legal uncertainty regarding this issue.

  136. 136.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 264.

  137. 137.

    Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 890.

  138. 138.

    Wiberg (2014), p. 284.

  139. 139.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 264; Barnard (2016), p. 433; Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 890.

  140. 140.

    Case C-293/14, Hiebler (ECJ 23 December 2015) para 70. On this ruling, see Damjanovic (2017), p. 1535.

  141. 141.

    Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber (ECJ 1 October 2015) para 68, where the Court has stated that public order is an overriding reason within the meaning of Article 10.2.b that includes “preventing criminal offences being committed against prostitutes, in particular human trafficking, forced prostitution and child prostitution”.

  142. 142.

    Barnard (2016), p. 434.

  143. 143.

    Case C-2/74, Reyners (ECJ 21 June 1974).

  144. 144.

    Specifically regarding the Services Directive: Case C-179/14, Commission v Hungary (ECJ 23 February 2016) para 44; See generally Case C-162/99, Commission v Italy (ECJ 18 January 2001).

  145. 145.

    Case C-255/04, Commission v France (ECJ 15 June 2006).

  146. 146.

    Case C-593/13, Rina Services and Others (ECJ 16 June 2015) para 37.

  147. 147.

    Case C-171/02, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 29 April 2004).

  148. 148.

    Case C-514/03, Commission v Spain (ECJ 26 January 2006).

  149. 149.

    Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04, Cipolla (ECJ 5 December 2006).

  150. 150.

    Case C-171/17, Commission v Hungary (ECJ 7 November 2018) para 83; Case C-179/14, Commission v Hungary (ECJ 23 February 2016) para 69 and 90.

  151. 151.

    Parliament/Council Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, O.J. L 204/37 (1998), now replaced by Parliament/Council Directive (EU) 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, O.J. L 241/1 (2015).

  152. 152.

    Barnard (2008), p. 361.

  153. 153.

    European Commission (2007), p. 36.

  154. 154.

    Specifically regarding the Services Directive: Case C-179/14, Commission v Hungary (ECJ 23 February 2016) para 102; See generally Case C-439/99, Commission v Italy (ECJ 15 January 2002).

  155. 155.

    Case C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital (ECJ 22 January 2002).

  156. 156.

    Case C-55/94, Gebhard (ECJ 30 November 1995).

  157. 157.

    Barnard (2016), p. 440.

  158. 158.

    Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 845; de Witte (2007), p. 11; European Commission (2007), p. 37.

  159. 159.

    Klamert (2010), p. 117, who considers that Article 16 represents the host State rule.

  160. 160.

    Davies (2007), p. 235; Hatzopoulos (2007), p. 245; Wyatt, in Dashwood et al. (2011), p. 623; Wiberg (2014), p. 133. Also, Craig and De Búrca (2015), p. 849, fn. 316, who consider that Recital 40 together with the argument of coherence vis a vis the other freedoms will point towards a wider and non-exhaustive list of justifications in the services field.

  161. 161.

    van de Gronden and de Waele (2010), p. 414.

  162. 162.

    Case C-458/08, Commission v Portugal (ECJ 18 November 2010) para 88.

  163. 163.

    Schütze (2015), p. 645.

  164. 164.

    Case C-342/14, X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft (ECJ 17 December 2015) para 37.

  165. 165.

    Barnard (2016), p. 442.

  166. 166.

    Barnard (2016), p. 444.

  167. 167.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 260.

  168. 168.

    European Commission (2007), p. 16.

  169. 169.

    European Commission (2007), p. 17.

  170. 170.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 261.

  171. 171.

    Hatzopoulos (2012), p. 261, fn. 209.

  172. 172.

    Wyatt (2011), in Dashwood et al., pp. 615–616.

References

  • Adamski, D. (2018). Lost on the digital platform: Europe’s legal travails with the digital single market. Common Market Law Review, 55, 719–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barav, A. (1977). La libre circulation des travailleurs, l’ordre public et le pouvoir de sanctions des États membres. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, 13, 721–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2008). Unravelling the services Directive. Common Market Law Review, 45, 323–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2016). The substantive law of the EU. The four freedoms. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2014). European Union law. Text and materials. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinesco, V., et al. (Eds.). (1992). Traité instituant la CEE, Commentaire article par article. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & De Búrca, G. (2015). EU law. Texts, cases, and materials. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Damjanovic, D. (2017). Territorial restrictions in the chimney sweep business under the Services Directive. Common Market Law Review, 54, 1535–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. (2007). The Services Directive: Extending the country of origin principle and reforming public administration. European Law Review, 32, 232–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Witte, B. (2007). Setting the scene: How did services get to Bolkestein and why? EUI Working Papers, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demaret, P., & Ernst de la Graete, B. (1983). Mesures nationales d’ordre public et circulation des personnes entre Etats membres. Cahiers de Droit Européen, 19, 255–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druesne, G. (1981). La liberté de circulation des personnes dans la CEE et les «emplois dans l’administration publique», sur une arrêt du 17 décembre 1980 de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, 17, 286–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Handbook on implementation of the Services Directive. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (1991). The European Convention on Human Rights and public policy exceptions to the free movement of workers under the EEC Treaty. European Law Review, 16, 466–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handoll, J. (1988). Article 48(4) EEC and non-national access to public employment. European Law Review, 13, 223–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos, V. (1999). Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients? The European market for health care services after the judgments of the ECJ in Vanbraekel and Peerbooms. Common Market Law Review, 36, 683–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos, V. (2007). Assessing the Services Directive (2006/123/EC). Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 10, 215–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos, V. (2012). Regulating services in the European Union. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huglo, J.-G. (2000). Droit d’établissement et libre prestation de services, Juris-Classeur Europe, fasc. 710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapteyn, P. J. G., & Verloren van Themaat, P. (1998). Introduction to the law of the European Communities (3rd ed.). London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamert, M. (2010). Of empty glasses and double burdens: Approaches to regulating the services market à propos the implementation of the Services Directive. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 37, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostakopoulou-Dochery, D., & Ferreira, N. (2013–2014). Testing liberal norms: The public policy and public security derogations and the cracks in European Union citizenship. Columbia Journal of European Law, 20(2), 167–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (1988). Le juge et la Constitution aux États-Unis d’Amerique et dans l’ordre juridique européen. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, B. (1989). The public service in Article 48 (4) EEC with special reference to the law in England and in the Federal Republic of Germany. Legal Issues of European Integration, 75–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lirola Delgado, M. I. (1994). Libre circulación de personas y Unión Europea. Madrid: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon-Caen, G. (1984). Un arrêt d’une interprétation difficile: l’arrêt de la Cour de Justice dans l’affaire des «chemins de fer belges» confronté au droit français. In P. Manin et al. (Eds.), Études de Droit des Communautés Européennes, Mélanges offerts à Pierre-Henri Teitgen. Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, F. G. (1993). La circulación de los trabajadores por cuenta ajena en la jurisprudencia comunitaria. In G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias & D. J. Liñán Nogueras (Eds.), El Derecho comunitario europeo y su aplicación judicial (pp. 805–817). Madrid: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, J. (1999). El derecho de establecimiento. In M. López Escudero & J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares (Eds.), Derecho comunitario material (pp. 123–136). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masclet, J.-C. (1997). Libre circulation des marchandises. Juris-Classeur Europe, fasc. 551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattera, A. (1991). El mercado único europeo, sus reglas, su funcionamiento. Madrid: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millán Moro, L. (1988). Algunas limitaciones a la libre circulación de personas en el Tratado CEE. Gaceta Jurídica de la CEE, D-9, 135–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M.-F. (1996). Liberté d’établissement et libre prestation de services. Joly Communautaire, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, R. (2015). European Union Law. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segura Serrano, A. (2002). Improvements in cross-border access to health services within the European Union. Harvard International Law Journal, 43(2), 553–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segura Serrano, A. (2003). El interés general y el comercio de servicios. Madrid: Tecnos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelkens, U., Weiß, W., & Mirschberger, M. (Eds.). (2012). The implementation of the EU Services Directive. Transposition, problems and strategies. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Gronden, J., & de Waele, H. (2010). All’s Well That Bends Well? The constitutional dimension to the Services Directive. European Constitutional Law Review, 6, 397–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijn, T. (2017). Les situations juridiques internes sont-elles couvertes par la directive services? Cahiers de Droit Européen, 1, 193–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2007). Promoting the consumer interest in an integrated services market. Mitchell Working Paper Series, 1, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiberg, M. (2014). The EU Services Directive: Law or simply policy? The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Antonio Segura Serrano

Authors
  1. Antonio Segura Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Segura Serrano .

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 21.06.1974, 2/74, Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68 [cit. in para 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 38]

  • ECJ 04.12.1974, 41/74, Van Duyn, ECLI:EU:C:1974:133 [cit. in para 19, 25, 26, 28]

  • ECJ 26.05.1975, C-67/74, Bonsignore, ECLI:EU:C:1975:34 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 28.10.1975, 36/75, Rutili, ECLI:EU:C:1975:137 [cit. in para 25, 26, 27]

  • ECJ 10.11.1976, 35/76, Simmenthal, ECLI:EU:C:1976:180 [cit. in para 20]

  • ECJ 15.09.1977, 5/77, Tedeschi, ECLI:EU:C:1977:144 [cit. in para 20]

  • ECJ 27.10.1977, 30/77, Bouchereau, ECLI:EU:C:1977:172 [cit. in para 25, 26, 27]

  • ECJ 05.04.1979, 148/78, Ratti, ECLI:EU:C:1979:110 [cit. in para 20]

  • ECJ 08.11.1979, 251/78, Denkavit, ECLI:EU:C:1979:252 [cit. in para 20]

  • ECJ 03.07.1980, 157/79, Pieck, ECLI:EU:C:1980:179 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 17.12.1980, 149/79, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:1982:195 [cit. in para 4, 7, 8]

  • ECJ 18.05.1982, 115 and 116/81, Adoui and Cornuaille, ECLI:EU:C:1982:183 [cit. in para 28, 29]

  • ECJ 10.07.1984, 72/83, Campus Oil and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1984:256 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 07.05.1986, 131/85, Gül, ECLI:EU:C:1986:200 [cit. in para 23, 26]

  • ECJ 15.05.1986, 222/84, Johnston, ECLI:EU:C:1986:206 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 03.06.1986, 307/84, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:1986:222 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 03.07.1986, 66/85, Lawrie-Blum, ECLI:EU:C:1986:284 [cit. in para 9, 10, 11]

  • ECJ 16.06.1987, 225/85, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1987:284 [cit. in para 9, 14]

  • ECJ 26.04.1988, 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders, ECLI:EU:C:1988:196 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 27.04.1989, 321/87, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:1989:176 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 18.05.1989, C-249/86, Commission v Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1989:204 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 30.05.1989, 33/88, Allué and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1989:222 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 05.12.1989, C-3/88, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1989:606 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 05.02.1991, C-363/89, Roux, ECLI:EU:C:1991:41 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 18.06.1991, C-260/89, ERT, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254 [cit. in para 27]

  • ECJ 25.07.1991, C-288/89, Gouda, ECLI:EU:C:1991:323 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 25.07.1991, C-353/89, Commission v The Netherlands (“Mediawet”), ECLI:EU:C:1991:325 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 04.10.1991, C-367/89, Richardt, ECLI:EU:C:1991:376 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 10.12.1991, C-306/89, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:1991:463 [cit. in para 9]

  • ECJ 04.05.1993, C-17/92, Fedicine, ECLI:EU:C:1993:172 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 13.07.1993, C-42/92, Thijssen, ECLI:EU:C:1993:304 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 17.10.1995, C-83/94, Leifer, ECLI:EU:C:1995:329 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 30.11.1995, C-55/94, Gebhard, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411 [cit. in para 40]

  • ECJ 02.07.1996, C-290/94, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:1996:265 [cit. in para 15]

  • ECJ 02.07.1996, C-473/93, Commission v Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:1996:263 [cit. in para 15]

  • ECJ 17.06.1997, C-65/95 and C-111/95, Shingara and Radiom, ECLI:EU:C:1997:300 [cit. in para 28]

  • ECJ 28.04.1998, C-158/96, Kohll, ECLI:EU:C:1998:171 [cit. in para 21, 23, 26]

  • ECJ 18.06.1998, C-266/96, Corsica Ferries France, ECLI:EU:C:1998:306 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 29.10.1998, C-114/97, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:1998:519 [cit. in para 11, 26]

  • ECJ 19.01.1999, C-348/96, Calfa, ECLI:EU:C:1999:6 [cit. in para 7, 16, 29]

  • ECJ 29.04.1999, C-224/97, Ciola, ECLI:EU:C:1999:212 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 21.09.1999, C-124/97, Läärä, ECLI:EU:C:1999:435 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 26.10.1999, C-273/97, Sirdar, ECLI:EU:C:1999:523 [cit. in para 16, 24]

  • ECJ 21.11.1999, C-67/98, Zenatti, ECLI:EU:C:1999:514 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 09.03.2000, C-355/98, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2000:113 [cit. in para 7, 11, 26]

  • ECJ 13.07.2000, C-423/98, Albore, ECLI:EU:C:2000:401 [cit. in para 16, 24, 27]

  • ECJ 23.11.2000, C-421/98, Commission v Spain (“architects”), ECLI:EU:C:2000:646 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 18.01.2001, C-162/99, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2001:35 [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 01.02.2001, C-108/96, Mac Quen, ECLI:EU:C:2001:67 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 31.05.2001, C-283/99 Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2001:307 [cit. in para 4, 11]

  • ECJ 12.07.2001, C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404 [cit. in para 21, 23]

  • ECJ 12.07.2001, C-368/98, Vanbraekel, ECLI:EU:C:2001:400 [cit. in para 21 23]

  • ECJ 20.11.2001, C-268/99, Jany, ECLI:EU:C:2001:616 [cit. in para 25]

  • ECJ 15.01.2002, C-439/99, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2002:14 [cit. in para 40]

  • ECJ 22.01.2002, C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital, ECLI:EU:C:2002:34 [cit. in para 40]

  • ECJ 13.06.2002, C-430/99 and C-431/99, Sea-Land Service, ECLI:EU:C:2002:364 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 11.07.2002, C-60/00, Carpenter, ECLI:EU:C:2002:434 [cit. in para 27]

  • ECJ 26.11.2002, C-100/01, Oteiza Olazábal, ECLI:EU:C:2002:712 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 13.05.2003, C- 385/99, Müller-Fauré and van Riet, ECLI:EU:C:2003:270 [cit. in para 21, 23]

  • ECJ 30.09.2003, 47/02, Anker and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2003:516 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 30.09.2003, C-405/01, Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española, ECLI:EU:C:2003:515 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 29.04.2004, C-482/01 and C-493/01, Orfanopoulos, ECLI:EU:C:2004:262 [cit. in para 27]

  • ECJ 29.04.2004, C-171/02, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2004:270 [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 13.07.2004, C-262/02, Commission v France (“alcohol tv advertising”), ECLI:EU:C:2004:431 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 14.10.2004, C-36/02, Omega, ECLI:EU:C:2004:614 [cit. in para 27]

  • ECJ 26.01.2006, C-514/03, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2006:63 [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 16.05.2006, C-372/04, Watts, ECLI:EU:C:2006:325 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 15.06.2006, C-255/04, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2006:401 [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 05.12.2006, C-94/04 and C-202/04, Cipolla, ECLI:EU:C:2006:758 [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 29.11.2007, C-404/05, Commission v Germany (“inspection of organic production”), ECLI:EU:C:2007:723 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 11.12.2007, C-438/05, Viking, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 13.12.2007, C-465/05, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2007:781 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 18.12.2007, C-341/05, Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 11.03.2008, C-89/07, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2008:154 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 17.07.2008, C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética, ECLI:EU:C:2008:421 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 10.09.2008, C-33/07, Jipa, ECLI:EU:C:2008:396 [cit. in para 25, 27]

  • ECJ 11.09.2008, C-447/07, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2008:502 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 07.11.2008, C-171/17, Commission v Hungary, ECLI:EU:C:2018:881 [cit. in para 39]

  • ECJ 20.11.2008, C-94/08, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2008:648 [cit. in para 13]

  • ECJ 22.12.2008, C-161/07, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2008:759 [cit. in para 18]

  • ECJ 19.05.2009, C-171/07 and C-172/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, ECLI:EU:C:2009:316 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 10.03.2009, C-169/07, Hartlauer, ECLI:EU:C:2009:141 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 08.09.2009, C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, ECLI:EU:C:2009:519 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 22.10.2009, C-438/08, Commission v Portugal (“road inspection”), ECLI:EU:C:2009:651 [cit. in para 9, 12]

  • ECJ 11.03.2010, C-384/08, Attanasio Group, ECLI:EU:C:2010:133 [cit. in para 26]

  • ECJ 01.06.2010, C-570/07, Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez, ECLI:EU:C:2010:300 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 05.10.2010, C-173/09, Elchinov, ECLI:EU:C:2010:581 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 23.10.2010, C-145/09, Tsakouridis, ECLI:EU:C:2010:708 [cit. in para 24]

  • ECJ 18.11.2010, C-458/08, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2010:692 [cit. in para 41]

  • ECJ 23.11.2010, C-145/09, Tsakouridis, ECLI:EU:C:2010:708 [cit. in para 20]

  • ECJ 27.01.2011, C-490/09, Commission v Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:2011:34 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-61/08, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:2011:340 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-54/08, Commission v Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2011:339 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-53/08, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2011:338 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-51/08, Commission v Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:2011:336 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-50/08, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:2011:335 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 24.05.2011, C-47/08, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2011:334 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 17.11.2011, C-430/10, Gaydarov, ECLI:EU:C:2011:749 [cit. in para 25, 26]

  • ECJ 17.11.2011, C-434/10, Aladzhov, ECLI:EU:C:2011:750 [cit. in para 25]

  • ECJ 01.12.2011, C-157/09, Commission v Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:2011:794 [cit. in para 7]

  • ECJ 22.05.2012, C-348/09, P.I., ECLI:EU:C:2012:300 [cit. in para 24, 25]

  • ECJ 19.07.2012, C-470/11, Garkalns, ECLI:EU:C:2012:505 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 11.07.2013, C-57/12, Femarbel, ECLI:EU:C:2013:517 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 05.12.2013, C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791 [cit. in para 23]

  • ECJ 12.06.2014, C-156/13, Digibet, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1756 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 22.01.2015, C-463/13, Stanley International Betting, ECLI:EU:C:2015:25 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 16.06.2015, C-593/13, Rina Services and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:399 [cit. in para 38]

  • ECJ 10.09.2015, C-151/14, Commission v Latvia, ECLI:EU:C:2015:577 [cit. in para 8, 11]

  • ECJ 01.10.2015, C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber, ECLI:EU:C:2015:641 [cit. in para 37]

  • ECJ 15.10.2015, C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:685 [cit. in para 12]

  • ECJ 17.12.2015, C-342/14, X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft, ECLI:EU:C:2015:827 [cit. in para 42]

  • ECJ 23.12.2015, C-293/14, Hiebler, ECLI:EU:C:2015:843 [cit. in para 37]

  • ECJ 28.01.2016, C-375/14, Laezza, ECLI:EU:C:2016:60 [cit. in para 21]

  • ECJ 23.02.2016, C-179/14, Commission v Hungary, ECLI:EU:C:2016:108 [cit. in para 38, 39, 40]

  • ECJ 01.02.2017, C-392/15, Commission v Czech Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2017:73 [cit. in para 11]

  • ECJ 20.12.2017, C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi, ECLI:EU:C:2017:981 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ, 30.01.2018, C-360/15 and C-31/16, X, ECLI:EU:C:2018:44 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 10.04.2018, C-320/16, Uber France, ECLI:EU:C:2018:221 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 13.11.2018, C-33/17, Čepelnik, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1022 [cit. in para 34]

  • ECJ 19.12.2018, C-375/17, Stanley International Betting, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1026 [cit. in para 21]

  • Opinion 05.12.1973, 152/73, Sotgiu, ECLI:EU:C:1973:148 [cit. in para 3]

  • Opinion 28.05.1974, 2/74, Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:59 [cit. in para 11]

  • Opinion 24.09.1980, 149/79, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:1982:153 [cit. in para 15]

  • Opinion 15.04.1986, 307/84, Commission v France, ECLI:EU:C:1986:150 [cit. in para 11]

  • Opinion 29.04.1986, 66/85, Lawrie-Blum, ECLI:EU:C:1986:179 [cit. in para 10]

  • Opinion 27.01.1987, 225/85, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1987:36 [cit. in para 10]

  • Opinion 14.02.1989, 33/88, Allué and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1989:62 [cit. in para 10]

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

Segura Serrano, A. (2021). Article 62 [Application of the Rules on the Right of Establishment]. 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_63

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_63

  • 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