Free Movement of Services Flashcards
Van Binsbergen
Dutch national represented in court by another Dutch national who moved to another MS. National law required representation to be established in the Netherlands, held to be contrary to Article 56, the articles have vertical direct effect. Freedom to travel to provide services. Member States are permitted to have rules regulating the administration of justice.
Walgrave & Koch
Articles have horizontal direct effect.
Deliege
Belgian sportswoman challenged Belgian judo rules, wasn’t wholly internal as there was competition between Member States.
Luisi and Carbone
Freedom to provide services includes freedom for the recipient of services to go to another Member State in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions, even in relation to payment.
Cowan
British tourist was held to be a recipient of services.
Alpine Investment
Cold calling case, covered by Article 56. Prohibition on cold calling was restriction but it could be justified, the rule was proportionate to the aim.
Bond van Adverteerders
Remuneration need not come from recipient of services so long as it comes from some party. Subscriber paid cable company who paid broadcaster, broadcaster provided service to subscribers.
Grogan
Abortion illegal in Ireland, students gave out leaflets about abortions in the UK, alleged that the leaflets contravened the ban. There was no economic link, Article 56 couldn’t be applied.
Gouda
Article 56 entails the abolition of any discrimination against a person providing services on account of his nationality or the fact that he is established in a member state other than the one in which the service is provided.
Belgium v Humble
State education not a service, economic link too far removed.
Watts
Woman told she couldn’t go abroad to have operation as she was on NHS waiting list, held that waiting list shouldn’t be used as a blanket excuse.
Commission v Spain
Not providing the same quality of unscheduled health care as home Member State not a restriction.
Carpenter
Wife argued that her deportation would affect her husband’s provision of services to other member states. Held he was a service provider and seperation would be frustrating to family life, freedom would be restricted if he had to move.
