Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

EU Law > Chapter 6 > Flashcards

Chapter 6 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What Articles?

A

Article 56 - 62

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

why is it different to freedom of establishment?

A

temporal character

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Article 56

A

‘Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.’

Also self employed
Jany

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Does it apply to companies?

A

Yes

Article 62 applying Article 52

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Does Article 56 have Direct Effect

A

Initially,
no as conditional and doesn’t satisfy VGEL

Van Binsbergen

  • has DE
  • Restrictions on the freedom to provide services should have been abolished by the end of the transitional period and so the requirement had become unconditional since that date
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are services?

A
  • activities of an industrial character
  • activities of a commercial character
  • activities of craftsmen
  • activities of the professions
    NOT EXHAUSTIVE
    Unborn children
  • abortion
    Jany
  • prostitution
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What constitutes a service?

A

Remuneration
Genuine and effective economic activity

Remuneration
Deliege
- Judo champion
- sponsors/broadcasters etc

Genuine + Effective
Steymann
- not marginal or ancillary

Schindler
- lotteries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Remuneration

A 
Article 57
Services
‘ those normally provided for remuneration’
By person receiving service +
Third parties

Deliege
Judo champion
rules of the European Judo Union which required athletes to be authorised or selected by their national federation in order to be able to compete in an international competition and which laid down national quotas for such competitions
Restricted her ability to provide services contrary to Article 56
COJ - rejected the argument that Article 56 could not apply because she was an amateur
The remuneration could be paid by a third party instead eg TV broadcasters, sponsers etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Genuine and effective economic activity

A

Steymann
Not marginal or ancillary

Schindler
Lotteries are an economic activity - services provided for remuneration constituted by the price of the ticket

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is outside of Article 56?

A

Official Services
From Article 51

Same as Establishment

  • Commission v Greece
  • Commission v Italy
  • Commission v Italy

When provisions for other areas such as Goods, Capital or Persons govern
- Article 57(1) TFEU provides that Article 56 will only apply in so far as the services are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.
Only when the other freedom is entirely SECONDARY
Omega
- ‘lasersport’ games in which players attempted to shoot each other with infra-red laser guns was held to be governed by Article 56 TFEU effect of restricting imports of the equipment used in the game and therefore restricted the free movement of goods.

Gebhard
- mutually exclusive

Purely Internal Situations
- Debauve
Deliege - cross border
Coster
Hubbard - The provider and the recipient can be based in the same Member State as long as there is still some cross-border element to the service.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What about Official Services?

A

Excluded
From Article 51

Same as Establishment

  • Commission v Greece
  • Commission v Italy
  • Commission v Italy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What about provisions for other areas such as Goods, Capital or Persons?

A
  • Article 57(1) TFEU - Article 56 will only apply when the services are not governed by the provisions

Omega
- ‘lasersport’ games held to be governed by Article 56 TFEU even tho could have been goods

Gebhard

  • mutually exclusive
  • services are subordinate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What about Purely Internal Situations?

A
  • Debauve
  • doesn’t apply to purely internal situs

Deliege -
flexible when cross border element

Coster
- a local tax on ownership of satellite dishes breached Article 56 because it would dissuade people from buying dishes and thus receiving programmes broadcast in other Member States.

Hubbard - both provider + recipient in UK. Still discriminatory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What happened in Hubbard

A

In his capacity as a solicitor and executor of a will in the UK, Hubbard brought an action in the German courts which would transfer ownership of land in the testator’s estate in Germany to him.

Both the provider of the service (Hubbard) and the recipient of the services (Hubbard’s client) were based in the UK.

Non-German nationals who brought claims in the German courts had to provide security for costs which would cover the defendant’s legal costs in the event of an unsuccessful claim.

Hubbard claimed that this was in breach of Articles 18 and 56 TFEU Treaty. The Court of Justice agreed.
The German law was discriminatory on grounds of nationality.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What constitutes a restriction?

A

Direct discrim
Indirect
Non attractiveness

Van Binsbergen
Dutch lawyer. Said only ppl in Netherlands could be legal reps. Discrimination. Residence as well as nationality.

Koestler
Reluctance to extend in non-discrim measures
- french bank stock transactions
Said it was only direct + indirect. No discrim.

Commission v Germany (Insurance Services)
Even non discrim measures - if they act as a restriction of freedom.

Sager
- UK/German patents
Prohibitions extended to indistinctly applicable measures

Analir
Measures which render less attractive those activities

Unborn children
- Not a restriction. No link.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What about non-discriminatory measures?

A

Koestler
Initial reluctance
said only disc + indirect disc

Commission v Germany (Insurance Services)
-non-discriminatory measures may still be prohibited if they acted as restrictions on the freedom of the foreign national to provide services.

Sager
- UK/German patents
Prohibitions extended to indistinctly applicable measures

Analir
- Measures which render less attractive those activities

17
Q

How can you justify a restriction

A
  1. Derogations in Article 52 applies
    - public policy
    - public security
    - public health

Omega
- public policy derogation worked

  1. Imperative Reasons

Imperative Reasons:

Sager
national measures could only restrict the freedom to provide services if they satisfy the following conditions:
» They apply to all persons
» They are justified by imperative reasons in the general interest;
» They are objectively necessary
» They do not exceed what is necessary to attain these objectives.

van Binsbergen
Commission v Germany (Insurance services)

  1. MS justifying a national rule which restricted freedom to provide services
    Schindler
    - lottery - fraud
    Deliege
    - national judo - not based on her nationality
  2. Dual Burden
    commission v germany
    Guiot
    - the Belgium legal requirement was not necessary to protect the workers as the scheme in Luxembourg already did this.
18
Q

MS justifying a national rule which restricted freedom to provide services

A

Schindler
- lottery - fraud
Deliege
- national judo - not based on her nationality

commission v germany
- dual burden
Guiot
- the Belgium legal requirement was not necessary to protect the workers as the scheme in Luxembourg already did this.

19
Q

Derogations in Article 52

A

Derogations in Article 52 applies

  • public policy
  • public security
  • public health

Omega
- ban was justifiable on public policy

Peerbooms
Watts

20
Q

Imperative Reasons

A 
Sager
4 Conditions
- apply to all
- justified by imperative reasons
- objectively necessary
- does not exceed what is necessary

van Binsgergen
restriction would not be incompatible when abt rules of professional conduct + justified by general good and indistinct

C v Germany (Insurance)
requirement of agents authorisation justified to protect policy holders
also
DUAL BURDEN

Schindler
high risk of fraud

Deliege
Not based on nationality

Guilot
Dual Burden

21
Q

Rights granted by Article 56

A

The right for a service provider to move to another Member State and to reside there in order to provide services is embodied in Article 57 TFEU itself
> directive 2004/38 Article 6 - general right for a UC and FM to remain 3 years. Longer if self employed

Rush

  • right for a service provider to bring its own workplace to the MS
  • now governed by Directive 96/71

Right to move and reside

Van binsbergen
- freedom to provide services includes the freedom to receive those services

Luisi
- foreign currency - in order to enable services to be provided, the recipients of services had the right to go to another Member State without restriction in order to receive a service there.

Social rights
- access to certain social rights on the same basis as nationals of host MS
Commission v Italy (Italian Housing)
Articles 49 and 56 were an extension of the non-discrimination principle in Article 18.

Cowan
- mugged - refusal to award Cowan compensation was discriminatory, contrary to Article 18, as French nationals did not have to be resident in France in order to be eligible for the compensation.

22
Q

SOCIAL RIGHTS

A
  • access to certain social rights on the same basis as nationals of host MS
    Commission v Italy (Italian Housing)
    Articles 49 and 56 were an extension of the non-discrimination principle in Article 18.

Cowan
- mugged - refusal to award Cowan compensation was discriminatory, contrary to Article 18, as French nationals did not have to be resident in France in order to be eligible for the compensation.

23
Q

What about Public Services - schools

A

Schools
Humbel
- French nationals who lived in Luxembourg.
- charged a fee, called the minerv
- argued that it restricted their right to receive services under Article 56
- held that courses provided within a national education system do not constitute a service in return for remuneration. This was because the State provides a national education system as part of its general duty towards its citizens

Wirth
- denial by German authorities of an education grant by a German national to a study a course in jazz saxophone at an Arts college in the Netherlands.
State funded education did not fall
- State funded education did not fall
- he Court did express the view that higher education establishments which are financed essentially out of private funds, in particular by students or their parents, and which seek to make an economic profit can constitute services within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU.
(contrast with Gravier)

24
Q

What about Public Services - health care

A

Imposition of requirements of prior authorisation for treatment abroad before they will reimburse a person for that treatment

Kohll
- sickness insurance was paid to the Union des Caisses de Maladie (‘UCM’) by employees and employers.
- reimbursed by the UCM upon production of a receipt.
- luxemberg law - an insured person who wanted to obtain medical treatment in another Member State had to receive prior authorisation from the UCM for the cost to be reimbursed
- Mr Kohll had been refused authorisation for his daughter to have orthodontic treatment in Germany on the grounds that it was not urgent and that treatment could be received in Luxembourg
- it did deter them from doing so by making the reimbursement of the costs incurred in that Member State subject to prior authorisation. This was a barrier to the freedom to provide services.
Justifications….
> sought to justify the requirement of prior authorisation by arguing that it constituted the only effective and least restrictive means of controlling expenditure on health and balancing the budget of the social security system.
< CoJ - whilst aims of a purely economic nature cannot justify a barrier to the freedom to provide services, the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security system may constitute an overriding imperative reason capable of justifying a barrier of that kind.
but in this case, reimbursement would have had no significant effect on the financing of the social security system as Mr Kohll had asked to be reimbursed at the rate applied in Luxembourg

> public health derogation under Article 52
< accepted, in principle that this could fall within the public health derogation in so far as the maintenance of a treatment facility or medical service on national territory is essential for the public health
< it found that no one had made any observations to prove that the specific rules at issue were indeed necessary to provide a balanced medical and hospital service accessible.

Peerbooms
> patients in the Netherlands received free treatment with the insurance fund paying the health care provider directly
> a patient would have to obtain prior authorisation from their sickness insurance fund if he wished to receive treatment from a health care provider which the fund did not have an agreement with in the Netherlands or from a health care provider abroad.
> granted if the proposed treatment was regarded as normal in the professional circles concerned and it was necessary for the health care of the person
> the applicants in this case had paid for their medical treatment abroad without obtaining prior authorisation from their sickness insurance fund + fund refused to reimburse
< CoJ - rejected arguments that the provision of hospital care could not constitute an economic activity covered by Article 56, particularly where it is provided free of charge under a sickness insurance scheme or the cost of it is reimbursed.
< In any event, the medical treatment at issue in this case had not been provided under a sickness insurance scheme. The claimants had themselves directly paid the medical establishments where they had received their treatment. The Court then went on to reiterate that a requirement of prior authorisation was a restriction because it deterred or prevented persons from using health care providers established in another Member State.

The Court distilled three grounds from Kohl on which restrictions to the exercise of
freedom to provide services in the sphere of hospital treatment could be justified:
1. The possible risk of seriously undermining a social security system’s financial balance. This was an imperative reason.
2. The need to maintain a balanced medical and hospital service open to all. This fell under Article 52’s public health derogation.
3. That the maintenance of treatment capacity or medical competence on national
territory is essential for the public health, and even the survival of the population.
This also fell under Article 52’s public health derogation.

R (Watts)
- NHS
- hip op in france
- article applicable also where a person wants reimbursement from a free national health service funded out of general taxation
- the requirement of prior-authorisation was a restriction on the freedom to provide services but that this was capable, in principle, of being justified for the reasons set out in Garaets-Smits and Peerbooms relating to the need for planning
- contingent on the restriction being based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance so as to ensure that it is not used arbitrarily.
- the regulations which governed the NHS in England and Wales did not provide such criteria for granting or refusing the prior authorisation for reimbursing of the cost of hospital treatment provided in another Member State. Moreover, it held that the Primary Care Trust should not have based its decision simply on the basis of the waiting lists without making an obj assessment of mrs watt’s case
CoJ - must balance the objective of the free movement of patients against overriding national objectives relating to management of the available hospital capacity, control of health expenditure and financial balance of social security systems

Acknowledged that MS to justify refusal of funding for treatment abroad on budgetary grounds
the rights under Article 56 had to be balanced against the considerations ‘relating to management of the available hospital capacity, control of health expenditure and financial balance of social security systems’. Directive 2011/24 now lays down rules for facilitating access to cross-border healthcare. Chapter III of the Directive deals with the reimbursement of costs for cross border health care.

25
Q

What happened in Kohll

A

Kohll
sickness insurance. Pay to see them reimbursed. Prior authorisation. Refused as not urgent.
This was a barrier to provide services
CoJ
1. balancing the budget - could be imperative reason. No
2. public Health - could fall under. No.

26
Q

What happened in Peerbooms

A

Peerbooms
- free treatment w insurance paying health care provider. Prior authorisation + normal and necessary
Restriction
3 Grounds from Kohl
1. Imperative Reason - undermining social security financial balance
2. Public Health - balanced medical service for all
3. Public Health - maintenance of treatment capacity

prior authorization is justified
normalcy justified
necessary justified

27
Q

What happened in R (Watts)

A

R (Watts)
- NHS
- hip op in France - authorisation needed
- prior-authorisation was a restriction on the freedom but could be justified based on reasons in K + P
- had to be objective and non-discriminatory criteria
not justified
BUT
rights from article 56 have to be balanced against consideration of hospital capacity, health expenditure and financial balance

28
Q

Other public services

A

Commission v Spain (museum entrance fees)
Spanish nationals were able to enter for free but foreigners were only entitled to free admission if they resided in Spain or were under 21 years of age.
In breach of articles 18 and 56 TFEU
Article 56 guaranteed the right for tourists, as recipients of services, to access those services under the same conditions as nationals.
What about the fact they are financed by the state ….

29
Q

What is the Services Directive and its history

A

Directive 2006/123

Origins - EU Council Lisob 2000
State of the Internal Market for Services
Bolkstein draft - ‘country of origin’ + no mention of imperatives
McGeery Draft - basis for Directive

MS
Set own national rules - justified on security, health or enviornment
No mention of other imperative requirements

30
Q

Professional Qualifications

A

Directive 2005/36

1) pursuing regulated profession outside of MS
2) hen service is legally established in one MS and moves to another temporarily

X-Steur
Has to be physically moved

MS is prohibited from restricting providing for any reasons to do with qualifications
Can require (Art 7)
- written dec
- proof of nationality 
- attestation of legality 
- evidence of qualification

Aptitude Test
- public health or safety and does not benefit from recognition under Chp2 +3 and substantial difference between training

Penarroja - mutual recognition principles from Vlassapoulou are also applicable

EU Law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions