6. Freedom To Provide Services Flashcards
Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
For activity to count as service it must be a ‘genuine and economic activity’
Van Binsbergen
Art 56 has direct effect
Procureur du Roi v Debauve
Article 56 doesn’t apply to purely internal situations
De Coster
Local tax on ownership of satellite dishes breached Art 56 because would dissuade people from buying dishes and thus receiving programmes broadcast in other MS
Hubbard v Hamburger
Requirement that UK-based solicitor provide security when bringing action in German court held to breach Art 56
Commission v Germany (Insurance Services)
Court willing to extend prohibition in Art 56 to non-discriminatory measures which act as obstacles to provision of services
Säger v Dennemeyer
Conditions measure must satisfy to count as imperative reason
- Apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing activity in the state of destination (i.e. indistinctly applicable)
- Justified by imperative reasons in the general interest
- Objectively necessary to ensure compliance with professional rules and protect recipients of services
- Do not exceed what is necessary to attain these objectives
Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Schindler
UK law banning lotteries other than national lottery justified as imperative reason
Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro
Freedom extends to freedom to travel to another MS to receive those services
Cowan v Tresor Public
Denial of compensation from public funds to UK tourist mugged in Paris held to be discriminatory
Belgium v Humbel
Non-Belgian charged fee to attend state secondary school
Education provided within national education system does not constitute a service in return for remuneration
Wirth v Landeshaupstadt Hannover
General state-funded higher education not a service
Though may be where substantially financed from private funds
Kohll v Union des Caisses de Maladie
Lux health authority’s denial of authorisation to patient to seek orthodontic treatment abroad held to violate Art 56
Garets-Smits and Peerbooms v Stichting Ziekenfonds
Prior authorisation to seek medical treatment abroad is a restriction, but one that is justified according to imperative reason of keeping control of social security’s financial balance and Art 52 derogation (public health)
R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust
Refusal to allow patient one-year waiting list to seek treatment abroad held to violate Art 56 (rejection based on fact waiting list was within gvt’s NHS Plan targets, whereas should have considered individual circumstances of patient)
