article eu law

Articles

Goods, Persons, Services and Capital in the European Union:JurisprudentialRoutestoFreeMovementTimConnor*AbstractThis Paper considers the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in relation to the freemovementprovisionsofEuropeanCommunity law inrelationtogoods,persons,servicesand capital within the European Union. It examines the bases used by the Court in itsapplicationofCommunityfreemovementprovisionstonationalmeasuresthatmayseekto hinder the exercise of such rights. From limited enquiry originally founded onconsiderationsofnondiscriminationbasedonnationality, toonemostrecently focussedonthe‘restriction’tothefreemovementright,thePaperexaminesthemethodsemployedby theCourt of Justice in its scrutinyof thenationalmeasure appearing to conflictwithTreatyfreemovementrights.Theexaminationoftheapplicablefreemovementjurisprudenceattemptstodemonstratethewantof a thematically consistentunderpinningwithin freemovement case law. ThePaper draws attention to the complexities and even the confusions that appear to beinherentwithin freemovement jurisprudenceandarguablyevidencedwithin theCourt’sjourneyfrom‘discrimination’to‘restriction’asthebasisoftheenquirywithregardtotheapplication of Treaty free movement rights. In its consideration of Case C‐110/05Commission v Italy, Case C‐142/05Åklagaren v. PercyMickelsson v. JoakimRoos, recentjurisprudencewith respect to the freemovement of goods, the Paper notes that in thecontextofthe‘measurehavingequivalenteffect’,theemphasis intheassessmentofthenational rulehasshiftedtoanexaminationof theeffectonmarketaccess, rather thanadistinctionbasedonthetypeofrule.A.PrefaceThisarticleexaminesthejurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourtofJusticeinrelationtotheachievementof freemovementTreatyrights inthecontextofgoods,1persons,2 services3andcapital.4

* Lecturer in Law, Bradford University Law School, School of Management, University of [email protected]

[Vol.11No.02 160 G e rman L aw J o u r n a l

Founded upon the application of Treaty provisions, togetherwith an assessment of thenationalmeasureby thebenchmarkof justification, theCourtof Justice is thearbiteroftheapplicationoffreemovementrightswithrespecttothemigrant,beitinthecontextofgoods, persons, services or capital. It is an arbitration that fundamentally has beenimmersedinanassessmentoftheconceptofnon‐discriminationonnationalitygrounds.Itnow appears, however, that the reliance on the application of that principle has beensublimatedinamovebytheCourttoconsidertherestrictionimposedonfreemovementrightsbythenationalmeasure.ThispaperexaminestherecentjurisprudenceoftheCourtofJustice,attemptingtoexplainthe ramifications resulting from the change in the enquiry which has now embracedexaminationoftherestrictiontothefreemovementrightsofgoods,persons,servicesandcapital.Itofferssomeexplanationofthechangethatconsequentlyhasbeenwroughtupontheprocessof justificationofthenationalmeasuredeemedrestrictiveoffreemovementrights. It examines the application of the concept of discrimination in free movementjurisprudence in so far as that examination underpins an explanation of the recentdevelopments. Finally, the article examines the continued maintenance of the ad hocposition respecting the jurisprudence of the freemovement of goods in relation to thelatentretentionofthedistinctionbetweendirectlyandindirectlydiscriminatorymeasures,and the recent developments in the jurisprudence with respect to the ‘sellingarrangement’.B.Discrimination‘Discrimination’ denotes less favorable treatmentof the imported goodand themigrantCommunity national by comparison to that given to the domestic good and to the hostnational. Article 12 EC renders “discrimination on grounds of nationality”5 unlawful. Itprovides“WithinthescopeofapplicationofthisTreaty…anydiscriminationongroundsofnationality shall be prohibited.” Article 12 EC is a general prohibition; it applies unless

1Art.28(ex30)EC.ConsolidatedVersionoftheTreatyEstablishingtheEuropeanCommunity,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities2002,C325,24/12/2004,p.47.

2Relatingtotheworker,Art39(ex48)ECandtorightsofestablishment,Art.43(ex52)EC.Seesupra,note1Art39(ex48),p.51;Art43(ex52)EC,p.52.

3Arts.49&50(ex59&60)EC.Seesupra,note1Art49&50(ex59&60)EC,pp.54‐55.

4Arts.56EC–60EC.Seesupra,note1Articles56‐60(ex73(b)–(g)),pp.56‐57.

5“WithinthescopeofapplicationofthisTreaty…anydiscriminationongroundsofnationalityshallbeprohibited.”Art12(ex6)EC.TheTreatyprovisionsinrelationtothisprohibitionwithrespecttofreemovementjurisprudencehavedirecteffect.Case13/76,GaetanoDonav.MarioMantero,1976E.C.R.1333,para.20.

2010] 161Goods,Persons,ServicesandCapitalintheEuropeanUnion

discriminationisprohibitedinspecificcircumstancesbytheTreaty.6Article12EC“requiresperfect equality of treatment inMember States…in a situation governed by CommunitylawandnationalsoftheMemberState.”7Theprohibition encompasses bothdirect and indirect discrimination.8 In JeanReyners v.BelgianState,9anexampleoftheformer,Belgianlawpermittedonlythehostnational10tobecome lawyers.11 Where the measure appears to be nationality‐neutral, thediscrimination is indirect12 if thenationalmeasure is intrinsically liable tohavea greatereffectonthemigrantnationalincomparisontothehostnational.13I.GoodsDirect discrimination means the imported good has received different and usually lessfavorable treatment by comparison with the treatment which the domestic good hasreceived.Forexample, inR.v.HennandDarby14andConegateLimitedv.HMCustoms&Excise15discriminatorynationallawsresulteddirectlyinatotalprohibitionwithrespecttotheimportedgood.

6 Case C‐176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur‐Braine ASBL v. Federation royale belge dessocietiesdebasket‐ball(FRBSB),2000E.C.R.I‐2681,para.37.

7CaseC‐43/95,DataDelectaAktiebolagandRonnyForsbergv.MSLDynamicsLtd,1996E.C.R.1‐4661,para.16.

8“Therulesregardingequalityoftreatment,…intheTreaty…forbidnotonlyovertdiscriminationbyreasonofnationalitybutalsoallcovertformsofdiscriminationwhich,bytheapplicationofothercriteriaofdifferentiation,lead in fact to the same result.”Case152/73,GiovanniMaria Sotgiu v.DeutscheBundespost,1974E.C.R.153,para.11.

9Inthecontextoftherightofestablishment,Art52(now43)EC.JeanReynersv.BelgianStateCase2/74,1974E.C.R.631.

10ADutchnationalexcludedfromtheprofessionofavocatonthegroundofnationality,para2.

11Notealsotherestrictionsontheemployabilityofmigrantsonfishingvessels,intheratioofthreeFrenchtoonenonFrenchnational.Case167/73,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,1974E.C.R.359,para.46.

12“Theapplicationofothercriteriaofdifferentiation,lead[s]tothesameresult”asdiscriminationwhichisdirect.Case C‐175/88, Klaus Biehl v. Administration des contributions du grand‐duche de Luxembourg, 1990 E.C.R. I‐1779,para.13.

13Agreaterburdeninfact.Inrelationtotheworker,forexampleCase152/73,GiovanniMariaSotgiuv.DeutscheBundespost,1974E.C.R.153,para.11;withrespecttoestablishmentandservicesCaseC‐3/88,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,1989E.C.R.4035,para.8.

14Case34/79,Reginav.MauriceDonaldHennandJohnFrederickErnestDarby,1979E.C.R.3795,para.22.

15Case121/85,1986E.C.R.1007.


The following instances of direct discrimination have, for example, resulted in thedesignation of “measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions:”16phytosanitary inspections imposed by Germany only on imported apples,17 a nationalmeasurerelatingtothepurityofbeer,18theimpositionofaminimumpriceforfuelwhichresulted in the import being unable to benefit from lower cost prices in the country oforigin,19 an Irish law which required petrol importers to buy 35 per cent of theirrequirementsfromthestate‐ownedoldrefineryatacentrallyfixedprice20andaSwedishlawprohibitingprivateindividualsfromimportingalcoholicbeverages.21The nationalmeasurewill be held to be indirectly discriminatorywhere trade rules, notthemselvesdiscriminatoryastoproductorigin, imposeagreater impactonthe importedgood. The barrier to the freemovement of goods is caught by Art 28 (ex 30) EC.22 TheDassonville definition of the “measure having equivalent effect” clearly contemplatesthis.23 Such was confirmed by Rewe‐Zentral A.G. v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung furBranntwein (Cassis de Dijon)24where German trade rules relating tominimum alcoholiccontentlevelsconstitutedanobstacletothefreemovementofcassisbetweenFranceandGermany.25 The national rules were effective to bar French cassis from the Germanmarket.

16Art.28(ex30)EC.

17Case4/75,Rewe‐ZentralfinanzeGmbHv.Landwirtschaftskammer,1975E.C.R.843.OtherexamplesforexampleincludeCase153/78,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,1979E.C.R.2555,para. 15. concerning the prohibition by Germany of imports of meat products manufactured from meat notcomingfromthecountryofmanufactureofthefinishedproductandCaseC‐398/98,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.HellenicRepublic,2001E.C.R.I‐7915whereGreecerequiredpetroleumcompaniesstoringtheirproductsinGreekrefineriestobuysuppliesfromthoserefineries.

18Case178/84,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,1987E.C.R.1227,para.40.

19 Case 231/83, Henri Cullet and Chambre syndicale des reparateurs automobiles et detaillants de produitspetroliersv.CentreLeclercaToulouseandCentreLeclercaSaint‐Orens‐de‐Gameville,1985E.C.R.305,para.34.

20Case72/83,CampusOilLimitedandothersv.Minister for IndustryandEnergyandothers,1984E.C.R.2727,para.20.

21CaseC‐170/04,KlasRosengrenandothersv.Riksåklagaren,2007E.C.R.I‐4071,para.36.

22NotealsothepossibilityofArt.30(now28)ECembracingtheindistinctlyapplicablemeasurewasbroachedbythe Commission in 1970; Art. 3 Council Directive 70/50/EEC of 22 December 1969, Official Journal L 13,19/01/1970p.29[OJSp.Ed.1970L13/29].SeealsoCaseC‐434/04,CriminalproceedingsagainstJan‐ErikAndersAhokainen,MatiLeppikJan‐ErikAndersAhokainen,2006E.C.R.I‐9171,para.18.

23Case8/74,ProcureurduRoiv.BenoitandGustaveDassonville,1974E.C.R.837,para.5.

24Case120/78,1979E.C.R.649.

25Id.,para.14.


Further examples of indirect discrimination include the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities v. Ireland,26 in which the Irish Goods Council promoted Irish goods to thedetriment of the imported product, and Commission of the European Communities v.UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthern Ireland,27wherenational rules relating todesignationoforiginswereheldunlawful.28II.PersonsandServicesIn relation to the worker, examples include the precondition of French nationality forpermanent employment of public sector nurses,29 based on the application of Art 48(2)(now 39) EC 30 wherein the conditions of work and employment favored Italianresearchers,31 andwhere the German foreignministry distinguished between local staffhavingGermannationalityandthosewhodidnot.32 Inrelationtorightsofestablishmentfor example, a Frenchmeasure required doctors established in otherMember States tocanceltheirregistrationinthatstateasapreconditiontopracticinginFrance.33InD.H.M.Segersv.BestuurvandeBedrijfsverenigingvoorBank‐enVerzekeringswezen,Groothandelen Vrije Beroepen,34 the host national was favored in respect of admission to national 26Case249/81,1982E.C.R.4005,para.30.

27Case207/83,1985E.C.R.1201,para.23.

28OtherexamplesincludeCase193/80,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,1981E.C.R.3019,para.12,anationalmeasure,whichdeterminedthatvinegarcouldonlybeusedforproductsobtainedfromthe acetic fermentation of wine, was held unlawful. The typically national product thereby favoured to thedetrimentofthevariouscategoriesofnaturalvinegarproducedinotherMemberStates.

29Case307/84,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,1986E.C.R.1725,para.17.

30BasedontheapplicationofArt48(2)(now39(2))EC.TheArticlespecificallyimplementstheprohibitionrelatingto discrimination. The provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, Official Journal L 257,19/10/1968p.2.[OJSp.Ed.1968,No.L257/2,p.475]implementtheprincipleofnon‐discriminationcontainedinArt39(2)(ex48(2)ECwithrespecttotheworker,“butdo[es]notextenditsscope”.CaseC‐90/96,DavidPetrieandOthersv.UniversitadeglistudidiVeronaandCamillaBettoni,1997E.C.R.I‐6527,para.25.

31Case225/85,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,1987E.C.R.2625,para.14.

32CaseC‐214/94,IngridBoukhalfav.BundesrepublicDeutschland,1996E.C.R.I‐2253,paras.17&22.

33Case96/85,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,1986E.C.R.1475.Otherexamplesinthecontextofestablishment includeCase63/86,Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv. ItalianRepublic,1988 E.C.R. 29, para. 20 where an Italian measure permitted only host nationals to purchase socially builthousing;arestrictioninCase147/86,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.HellenicRepublic,1988E.C.R.1637,para.21onthemigrantsettingupprivatemusicanddanceschoolsand inCaseC‐311/97,RoyalBankofScotland Plc v. Greece, 1999 E.C.R. I‐2651, paras. 14 & 15, where higher tax rates were charged on foreigncompanies.

34Case79/85,D.H.M.Segersv.BestuurvandeBedrijfsverenigingvoorBank‐enVerzekeringswezen,GroothandelenVrijeBeroepen1986E.C.R.2375,para.13.


sicknessinsurancebenefits‐thediscriminationintheDutchlawbasedonthelocationoftheregisteredoffice.35Finally, in relation to the right to provide services, a residence requirement imposed byHolland in the context of undertaking a professional activity made it “impossible forpersonsresidinginanothermemberStatetoprovideservices.”36Withrespecttothefreemovementofpersons,muchjurisprudenceexistswhichhasbeenfoundedon theapplicationof theprincipleofdiscrimination,which is indirect innature.Withregardtotheworker,forexample,theimpositionofatimelimitonthedurationofthe employment relationship between universities and foreign language assistants washeld tobe indirectlydiscriminatory.37An Italian lawregardingemploymentof temporaryteachers acted to the detriment of the migrant national.38 In relation to the right ofestablishment, the United Kingdom stipulated the possession of UK nationality aspreconditionforshipownership.39Inrelationtotherighttoprovideservices,aBelgianruleforexamplewasheldunlawfulwhereitprovidedthatfeechargingemploymentagenciesshould be subject to the grant of a license.40 Finally, in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori

35Id.,para.19.

36Case39/75,Robert‐GerardusCoenenandothersv.Sociaal‐EconomischeRaad,1975E.C.R.1547,para.12.SeealsoCaseC‐294/89,Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv. FrenchRepublic, 1991E.C.R. I‐3591,para.37,where thenational law required themigrant lawyerprovidingservices toworkwithaFrench lawyerand inC‐353/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,1991E.C.R.I‐4069,paras.16‐17,anobligationimposedonnationalbroadcastingbodiesestablishedintheNetherlandstohaveallorsomeoftheirprogrammesmadebyaDutchundertakingwasdirectlydiscriminatory.

37Case33/88PilarAllueandCarmelMaryCoonanv.UniversitadeglistudidiVenezia,1989E.C.R.1591,para.19.Other examples relate to Case C‐272/92Maria Chiara Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern,1993 E.C.R. I‐5185, para. 18,where theawardingof fixed termcontracts in respectof languageposts filledmainlyby foreign‐assistantsandCase16/78CriminalproceedingsagainstMichelChoquet,1978E.C.R.2293,para.8.whereaninsistencethatthemigrant worker obtain a fresh driving license, thereby duplicating one held in the home state, could haveindirectly prejudiced exercise of free movement rights. The latter example represents an extension of theprinciple of non‐discrimination through the conduit of Art 7(2) Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of Council of 15October1968,of15October1968,OfficialJournalL257,19/10/1968p.2.[OJSp.Ed.1968,No.L257/2,pg475].

38 CaseC‐90/96,DavidPetrie andOthers v.Universita degli studi di VeronaandCamillaBettoni, 1997E.C.R. I‐6527,para.55.

39 For example Case C‐221/89,TheQueen v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte FactortameandOthers,1991E.C.R.‐3905;CaseC‐334/94,Commissionv.France,1996E.C.R.I‐1307.Further,inCase154/87,Rijksinstituutvoordesocialeverzekeringdeszelfstandigen(RSVZ)v.HeinrichWolfetNVMicrothermEuropeandothers,1988E.C.R.3897,para.9., itwasheldthatselfemployedmigrantsweretobeexemptedonanequalbasiswithhostnationalsfromsocialsecuritycontributions.

40 Joined cases 110& 111/78,Ministere public and ‘Chambre syndicale des agents artistiques et impresarii deBelgique’ASBL v.Willy vanWesemael andothers, 1970 E.C.R., para. 39.Other examples includeCase 205/84,Commission v. Germany, 1986 E.C.R. 3755, para. 57. in which legislation required insurance undertakingsproviding direct insurance services to have a permanent establishment in the state in which the service wasprovided.Sotoo,inCaseC‐360/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,1992E.C.R.1‐


Commercialisti Srl v. Calafiori, an Italian law providing that tax assistance was to beexclusively given by authorized Italian tax advice centers financed by Italy was heldindirectlydiscriminatory.41The concept of ‘indirect’ discrimination has been deemed by the Court to embrace theimpositionofdualburdenrulesonthemigrantnational.Examplesofsuchrulesincludetherequirementtoholdparticularqualifications42orlicenses.43Insuchinstances,themigrantsatisfiestwodifferentsetsofrules(thoseofthehomeandhoststates);thehostnationalbycomparisonsatisfiesonlyonesetof rules; thoseof thehoststate.Theresultant ‘dualburden’ placed on the migrant has occasionally been referred to by the Court as an“indistinctlyapplicablemeasure.”44Althoughit isaclassificationthatmayhelptoexplainservicesjurisprudence;theapplicationofthenomenclatureof‘discrimination’is,however,lesssatisfactorilyappliedwithrespecttoworkersandtoestablishment.Theperformanceof the latteractivities iscontrolledonlybyoneregulationregime; thatof thehoststate.The classification by the Court of the double burden rule as ‘indirectly discriminatory’raises conceptualdifficulties; not all ‘indirectlydiscriminatory’ rulesnecessarily imposeadual burden.45 The Court has skirted this issue by presenting a broad definition of theconcept of ’indirect’ discrimination. The concept embraces instanceswhere the nationalmeasure“isintrinsicallyliabletoaffectmigrantworkersmorethannationalworkersandifthereisaconsequentriskthatitwillplacetheformerataparticulardisadvantage.”46TheconsequencesofafocusonthepotentialeffectonthefreemovementrighthasresultedinmorenationalrulesbeingcastwithintheambitoftheTreaty.Oneconsequenceofthishasrelated to the need to justify national rules on grounds other than the narrow expressderogationsgivenintheTreaty.47

3401, para. 23. Here an Italianmeasurewas unlawfulwhere it concerned the reservation of publicworks forcompanies having offices in the regionof thoseworks. Another example, in Case 59/82,SchutzverbandgegenUnwesen inderWirtshaft v.Weinverttiebs‐Gmbh,1983E.C.R.1217 related to themarketingof vermouth.TheimportcontainedaloweralcoholcontentthantheminimumprescribedintheexportingMemberState,para.12.

41CaseC‐451/03,ServiziAusiliariDottoriCommercialistiSrlv.Calafiori2005E.C.R.I‐3875,para.36.

42 Case C‐340/89, Irène Vlassopoulou v. Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes‐ und Europaangelegenheiten Baden‐Württemberg,1991E.C.R.1‐2357,para.15.

43Case292/86,ClaudeGullungv.Conseildel”ordredesavocatsdubarreaudeColmaretdeSaverne,1988E.C.R.111,para.31.

44Case143/87,ChristopherStantonandSAbelged”assurances"L’Étoile1905"v. Institutnationald”assurancessocialespourtravailleursindépendants(Inasti),1988E.C.R.3877,para.9.

45Forexamplerulesconcerningqualificationsandlicences.

46CaseC‐237/94,JohnO’Flynnv.AdjudicationOfficer,1996E.C.R.I‐2617,paras.18‐19.

47ForadiscussionoftheconsequenceofthisissueseeCATHERINEBARNARD,THESUBSTANTIVELAWOFTHEEU:THEFOURFREEDOMS262OxfordUniversityPress2nded.,2007).


III.CapitalArticle 56(1) EC prohibits “all restrictions on themovement of capital betweenMemberStates.”Directandindirectdiscriminationhavebeenprohibited.InKlausKonlev.RepublikÖsterreich, theAustrian lawwhichexemptedthehostnational fromtherequirementsofauthorizationpre‐landacquisitionwashelddirectlydiscriminatorytomigrantnationals inrespect of capital movements between Member States.48 In Alfredo Albore, therequirementplacedon solely themigrantnationalofprior authorizationwith respect tothepurchaseofproperty inareasofmilitary importancewassimilarlyheldunlawful.49 InBlanckaert, itwasnoted that “Less favorable tax treatment fornon‐residentsonlymightdeterthelatterfrominvestinginpropertyintheNetherlands.”50IV.Discrimination‐KeyissuesIt is clear from the forgoing analysis that the early jurisprudence of the Court of Justicerelatingtotheachievementoffreemovementofgoods,persons,servicesandcapitalwasfounded on the application of the principle of the abolition of “any discrimination ongrounds of nationality.”51 The recent redirection of that enquiry to the examination of“restrictions/obstacles” raises a key issue for determination. Why was the concept ofdiscriminationallowedtoremainforsolonginthevanguardoftheattackonthenationalmeasurethathinderedtheexerciseofthefreemovementright?1.Solebasisforjustification?The principle of “non‐discrimination on grounds of nationality” represents a generalprinciple52 of Community law that has been specifically applied by free movementjurisprudence.Withouttheapplicationofthatprinciple,forexample,Ms.Coonan,asaUKnationalandworkerinItaly,wouldhavebeenexcludedfromthatcountry’ssocialsecurityscheme,53 Mr. Petrie, working as a foreign assistant in Verona, would not have beeneligibleforappointmenttofillatemporaryteachingvacancy,andtheimportofapplesby

48CaseC‐302/97,KlausKonlev.RepublikÖsterreich1999E.C.R.I‐3099,para.23.

49CaseC‐423/98,AlfredoAlbore2000E.C.R.I‐05965,para.17.

50C‐512/03,Blanckaertv. InspecteurvandeBelastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingenbuitenland teHeerle,2005E.C.R.I‐07685,para.39.

51Art.12(ex6)EC.Alsoforexample,Art.39(2)(ex48(2))ECinrelationtotheworker.

52Art.12EC.

53Case33/88,PilarAllueandCarmelMaryCoonanv.UniversitadeglistudidiVenezia,1989E.C.R.1591.


Rewe Zentralfinanz eGmbH54 would have been hindered by phytosanitary inspectionsimposedbyGermany.Despitetheattainmentoffreemovementrightsintheseinstances,none of the Treaty provisions with respect to goods, persons, services and capital arespecificallydirectedtowardsdiscriminationperseasthesolearbitratoroftheapplicationoffreemovementrights.55It appearsdifficult tounderstandwhy theplatformof restrictions/obstacleonwhich theenquiryisnowbasedwasnotadoptedfrominceptionbythejurisprudencerelatingtothefreemovementofgoods,persons,servicesandcapital.Withrespecttopersons,therealitywould suggest otherwise. For example, the judgment ofProcureur du Roi v.Marc J.V.C.Debauveandothers,56withrespecttotheprovisionofservicesaslateas1980,57refusedtorecognize the non‐discriminatory restriction as a conduit for achieving Treaty freemovementrights.58This judgmentmayseemperplexing,givenboththerecentemphasison the examination of the restriction/obstacle to the freemovement right and also thelanguagethathasbeenadoptedbytheTreatyitself.Withrespecttothelatter,itmustbenoted that the only Treaty free movement right to identify specifically the concept ofdiscrimination is that accorded to the worker.59 Not only is the concept notably absentfromtheotherfreemovementTreatyprovisions,butthoseprovisionsclearlyembracethelanguageofrestriction/obstacle.TheprohibitioncontainedinArt43(ex52)ECrelatesto“restrictions on the freedom of establishment.” Art 49 (ex 59) EC is similarly directed,“restrictions on freedom to provide services”60 shall be prohibited. The prohibitioncontainedinArticle56(1)EC,“allrestrictionsonthemovementofcapital”isexpressedinthe same terms. It is arguable that had free movement jurisprudence from inception

54Case4/75,Rewe‐ZentralfinanzeGmbHv.Landwirtschaftskammer,1975E.C.R.843,para.3.

55OnlyArt.39(ex48)ECrelatingtotheworkerspecificallyidentifiestheconceptofdiscrimination.ThatArticleprovides “Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationalitybetweenworkersofMemberStates.”

56Case52/79,ProcureurduRoiv.MarcJ.V.C.Debauveandothers1980E.C.R.833.

57Judgmentdelivered18March1980.

58“TheanswermustthereforebethatArticles59and60oftheTreatydonotprecludenationalrulesprohibitingthetransmissionofadvertisementsbycabletelevision‐astheyprohibitthebroadcastingofadvertisementsbytelevision ‐ if those rules are appliedwithout distinction as regards the origin,whether national or foreign, ofthoseadvertisements,thenationalityofthepersonprovidingtheservice,ortheplacewhereheisestablished”supra,note56,para.16.

59Art.39(2)(ex48(2))EC.“SuchfreedomofmovementshallentailtheabolitionofanydiscriminationbasedonnationalitybetweenworkersofMemberStates.”

60Similarly,inrelationtothefreemovementofgoods,thelanguageofArt.28ECisreflectiveofthissentiment.The Article, is expressed as the “measure having equivalent effect;” equivalent to the quantitative restriction.Notealso thedefinitionofArt30 (now28)ECprovidedbyCase8/74,ProcureurduRoi v.BenoitandGustaveDassonville,1974E.C.R.837,para.5.


followed this gentle prod provided by the Treaty to examine the restriction to the freemovement right, implementingsuchrightsmighthavebeen lessproblematic. JudgmentssuchasDebauve61mighthavequarriedadifferentconclusion.62Further,itisaterminologyreflective of the expression of the general principles of the Treaty, “the abolition…ofobstacles to the free movement of…persons, services.”63 It is a conclusion given addedforce by the reference, for example, within the early judgment of Lynne Watson andAlessandro Belmann to the general principles of the Treaty in the context of the freemovementofpersons.64 Further, judgments suchasCriminalProceedingsagainstMichelChoquet65forexample,acknowledgethatconditionsimposedrelatingtoholdersofdrivinglicenses were an obstacle66 to exercise of free movement rights of the worker,67establishment,68 and the right to receive services.69 Indeed, many of the judgmentsconcerned with the issue of discrimination acknowledge the existence of arestriction/obstacle to the freemovement right.70 It is arguable that the terminology ofrestriction and obstacle in the context of asserting free movement rights bears a morehonest reflection of the intent of Treaty free movement provisions. Both terms in thiscontext are synonymous.71 Their use would necessarily encompass the discriminatory


62Onepossibleargumentstandinginoppositiontothesesentimentswouldappeartobethathadthatapproachbeenadopted,MemberStateswouldhavebeensaddledwiththegroundsprovidedbytheTreatywithrespecttojustification of the national measure. It would follow that the subsequent circumvention of those grounds ininstances of indirect discrimination would have remained closed to the Court and may never have thereforeoccurred.

63Art.3(1)(c)EC.

64Case118/75,LynneWatsonandAlessandroBelmann1976E.C.R.1185,para.23.

65Case16/78,CriminalProceedingsagainstMichelChoquet1978E.C.R.2293.

66Id.,para8.

67Art.48(now39)EC.

68Art.52(now43)EC.

69Arts.59&60(now49&50)EC.

70ForexampleCase2/74,JeanReynersv.BelgianStateECR631,para49;Case33/74JohannesHenricusMariavanBinsbergenv.BestuurvandeBedrijfsverenigingvoordeMetaalnijverheid,1974E.C.R.1299,para.23,Case107/83,Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v. Onno Klopp, 1984 E.C.R. 2971, para. 8; Case 120/78Rewe‐ZentralAGv.BundesmonopolverwaltungfurBranntwein,1979E.C.R.649,para.14;Case71/76,JeanThieffryv.Conseildel”ordredesavocatsalacourdeParis,1977E.C.R.765,para.27.

71“Insofarassuchelements(inrelationtohealthservicesofhomerespiratorytreatments)arenotobstaclestothe establishment of the undertakings on Spanish territory it must be held, first of all, that no restriction onfreedomofestablishmentexistsinthiscase”(emphasisesadded).AlsoCaseC‐234/03,ContseSA,VivisolSrlandOxigen Salud SA v. Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud(Insalud),2005E.C.R.1‐9315,para.27.


measure, but the advantage of re‐branding to the equation of restriction/obstacle isremovingtheneedfor identificationof thepresenceofdiscrimination;whetherdirectorindirect.The jurisprudentialconsequencesofthatdivision72arethuseasilyremoved. It isarguablethat itwouldnothavebeenan insurmountablehurdle fortheCourt inthefirstinstance to envisage an equation encompassing obstacles rather than one routed indiscrimination. It is ironic perhaps that Procureur du Roi v. Marc J.V.C. Debauve andothers,73which, in judgment eschewing examination of the non‐discriminatorymeasure,should have had recourse to the descriptive language of restriction in the context ofmeasuresconcerningtelevisionadvertising.74Theremaybesomeforce inthesuggestionthatthemaintenanceoftheconceptofdiscriminationasthestandardbearerofattainingfreemovementrightshaseffectivelyhadadetrimentaleffectonthegeneraldevelopmentoffreemovementjurisprudence.The success that the non‐discriminatory requirement has achieved with respect toachieving the reality of free movement arguably explodes any residual notion that theconcept of discrimination alone was ever the sole battle‐ground with respect to theachievementoftherightoffreemovement.Thejurisprudencewhichextendstheenquirybeyondtheconceptofdiscriminationisconsideredinthenextsection.C.BeyondDiscriminationThissectionofthepaperisconcernedwiththemethodsadoptedbytheCourtofJusticeinthepursuitoffreemovementrightswithrespecttogoods,persons,servicesandcapitalonbasesotherthandiscriminationinthenationalmeasure.I.GoodsThenomenclatureofrecentjudgmentswithrespecttotheapplicationofTreatyprovisionsin relation to goods is directed at the assessment of the restriction to the right of freemovement.Itisaterminologythatdoesnotfocusonanassessmentofdiscrimination.Forexample,aFinnishrequirementofpriorauthorizationwhichappliedinrelationtoproductssubject toexcisedutywasheldtobe“arestrictionontradebetweenMemberStates.”75

72ParticularlywithrespecttothedifficultyintheuseoftheTreatygroundswithrespecttoissuesofjustificationinthecontextofdirectdiscrimination.


74Id.,para.15.

75CaseC‐434/04,CriminalproceedingsagainstJan‐ErikAndersAhokainen,MatiLeppik,2006E.C.R.I‐9171,para.22.


Likewise,Greekprovisionsgoverningproductionconditionsforbakeryproductsrestrictedthe freemovement of goods,76 and the failure by Austria to prevent the closure of theBrenner motorway resulting from demonstration for nearly 30 hours was held a“restriction which was capable of restricting intra‐community trade in goods.”.77 Theoptional use of a quality label was held inCommission of the European Communities v.FederalRepublicofGermany,78atleastpotentiallytohave“restrictiveeffects”onthefreemovementofgoods.79On theground that it restrictedaccessof the importof ItalianandSpanishpipes to thePortuguesemarket, thenationalmeasurewasheldtobeprohibited.80Germanmeasuresrelatingtore‐usablepackagingwerehelda“barriertotrade,”81asweremeasuresobligingproducers to alter certain information on packaging.82 On the same grounds, Italianmeasures which rendered themarketing of foods for sports personsmore difficult andexpensivefellwithinArt28(ex30)ECscrutiny.83TherestrictionsimposedbyHollandwithrespect to themarketingof foodstuffs fortifiedwith vitamins andmineralswereheld to“hinder tradebetweenMemberStates,”84 asdid the requirementofproofofnutritionalneedCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark.85

76 Joined cases C‐158/04, & C‐159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. EllinikoDimosioandNomarchiakiAftodioikisi,2006E.C.R.I‐8135.

77CaseC‐112/00,EugenSchmidberger,InternationaleTransporteundPlanzugev.RepublikOsterreich,2003E.C.R.I‐5659,paras.62&64.

78CaseC‐325/00,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany2002E.C.R. I‐9977,para.23.

79Id.,para.23.

80CaseC‐432/03,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.PortugueseRepublic,2005E.C.R.I‐9665,para.41.

81CaseC‐309/02,RadlbergerGetrankegesellschaftmbH&Co.andS.SpitzKGv.LandBaden‐Wurttemberg,2004E.C.R.I‐11763,para.60.

82CaseC‐463/01,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2004E.C.R.I‐11705,paras.53,68&69.

83CaseC‐270/02,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,2004E.C.R.I‐1559,para.19.

84CaseC‐41/02,Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv.Kingdomof theNetherlands,2004E.C.R. I‐11375,para.41.SimilarAustrianmeasureswereheldtobe“abarriertotrade”andFrenchmeasuresmerely“measureshaving equivalent effect” in Case C‐24/00,Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, 2004E.C.R. I‐1277, para. 23; Case C‐150/00,Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria, 2004E.C.R.I‐3887,para.82,aswereGermanmeasuresinCaseC‐387/99,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2004E.C.R.I‐3751,para.65.

85CaseC‐192/01CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark,2003E.C.R.I‐9693,para.41.


Spanish requirements relating to the labeling and packaging of cocoa and chocolateproductscontainingvegetablefatsotherthancocoabutterwereheldtobeanobstacletothe freemovementof goods,86 aswasadispute regarding thenamegiven toa cleaningproduct.87 The procedure requiring previously tested vehicles to be tested again as togeneralconditionpriortoregistrationintheNetherlands,constitutedarestrictiononthefreemovementofgoods.88II.PersonsandServicesIt is clear from judgments such asBosman89 andVolkerGraf v. FilzmoserMaschinenbauGmbH90that“Article48[now39]oftheTreatyprohibitsnotonlyalldiscrimination,directorindirect,basedonnationalitybutalsonationalruleswhichareapplicableirrespectiveofthe nationality of the workers concerned but impede their freedom of movement.”91Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor deMetaalnijverheid had made the same recognition of terminology with respect to theprovisionofservices92bythemigrantinthehoststate.93Freemovement jurisprudence has not been slow to explore application of the principlethat theTreaty freemovementprovisionsextend to themigranta rightofaccess to themarketplace in the host state. In seeking to achieve this objective, various adjectivalterminologies have been used. The following jurisprudence examines more closely the

86CaseC‐12/00,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofSpain,2003E.C.R.I‐459,para.73.Thisresulted in the need to alter the packaging or the labelling of imported products. See also Case C‐14/00CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,2003E.C.R.I‐513,para.73.

87CaseC‐358/01,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofSpain,2003E.C.R.I‐13145,para.44.

88C‐297/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,2007E.C.R. I‐7467,para.74.

89C‐415/93,UnionroyalebelgedessocietesdefootballassociationASBLv.Jean‐MarcBosman,RoyalclubliegeoisSA v. Jean‐Marc Bosmanand others and Union des associations europeennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean‐MarcBosman,1995E.C.R,1‐4921,para.96.

90CaseC‐190/98,VolkerGrafv.FilzmoserMaschinenbauGmbH2000E.C.R.I‐493.

91Id.,para18.

92Art.59(now49)EC.InthecontextofanhabitualresidencerequirementimposedbytheDutchBaronmigrantnationalsseekingtoprovidelegalservicesinHolland.SeealsoCaseC‐208/05, ITCInnovativeTechnologyCenterGmbH v. Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2007 E.C.R. 00, para. 11; Case C‐490/04 Commission of the EuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2007E.C.R.I‐6095,para.63.

93Case33/74,1974E.C.R.1299,para.11.


approachtakenbytheCourtintheapplicationoffreemovementrightswherethenationalmeasureinissueappliesirrespectiveofthenationalityofthemigrant.1.“Liabletohamperortorenderlessattractive”Measures which governed the conditions under which an academic title obtained inanotherMemberStatecouldbeusedwouldbeunlawfulif“liabletohamperortorenderless attractive…fundamental freedoms94 guaranteed by the Treaty.”95 Spanish measuresdictatingaregionalpresenceforundertakingstenderingforservicesforhomerespiratorytreatments were similarly held to render less attractive the exercise of free movementrights,96 as was a registration requirement imposed on migrant patent agents as apreconditiontoprovidingservicesinItaly.972.“Liabletoprohibitorotherwiseimpede”InManfredSagerv.Dennemeyer&Co,98national legislationpreventedapatent renewalcompany from providing a monitoring service in Germany. The German legislation washeld“liable toprohibitorotherwise impede”99 the serviceactivitiesof theUKcompany.United Kingdom measures affecting the importation of lottery tickets by the UnitedKingdom, were held “liable to prohibit or otherwise impede” the right to provideservices,100aswas theGreek licensingof self‐employedmigrant touristguideswhowerepreventedfromsupplyingthoseservicesiftheyhadnotqualifiedinthatstate.101

94InthecontextofArts.48(now39)ECand52(now43)EC.

95CaseC‐19/92,DieterKrausv.LandBaden‐Wurttemberg,1993E.C.R.I‐1663,para.32.

96CaseC‐234/03,ContseSAandOthersv.InstitutoNacionaldeGestionSanitaria,2005E.C.R.1‐9315,para.25.

97CaseC‐131/01,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,2003E.C.R.1‐1659,para.26.ThesamelanguagewasusedinCaseC‐58/98,JosefCorsten,2000E.C.R. I‐7919,para.33withrespecttopursuingaskilledtradesactivityinGermany.

98C‐76/90,ManfredSagerv.Dennemeyer&Co1991E.C.R.1‐4221.

99Id.,para12.

100CaseC‐275/92,HerMajesty’sCustomsandExcisev.GerhartSchindlerandJorgSchindler,1994E.C.R.I‐1039,para.43.AlsoCaseC‐451/03,ServiziAusiliariDottoriCommercialistiSrlv.Calafiori,2005E.C.R. I‐3875,para.31withrespecttotherightofestablishmentandtheprovisionofservices.

101CaseC‐389/95,SiegfriedKlattnerv.EllinikoDimosio(GreekState),1997E.C.R.I‐2719,para.16&19.InCaseC‐134/03,ViacomOutdoorSrLv.GiottoImmobilierSARL2005ECRI‐1167.Article49ECwasheldnottoprecludethelevyingofamunicipaltaxonadvertising,para39.InCaseC‐266/96,CorsicaFerriesFranceSAv.GruppoAntichiOrmeggiatoridelPortodiGenovaCoop.arlandOthers,1998E.C.R.I‐3949,therewasheldnorestrictiononthefreedomtoprovidemaritimetransportserviceswhenconsideringthefeesimposedbyItalyformooringservices.


3.AnimpedimenttofreemovementInCotswoldMicrosystemsLtd,Finnishlegislationreservingtoasinglebodyexclusiverightstooperate slotmachines,wasdescribedby theCourt as “an impediment to freedom toprovideservices”.102Likewise,theDutchimpositionrelatingtominimumcapitalinrespectof company formation and directors’ liability was held an impediment to freedom ofestablishment.103 In Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen, national rules relating to anobligation to comply with collective agreements with respect to public works contractsconstituted “animpediment tomarket access” in respectofmigrantswishing toprovideservicesinGermany.1044.Impedingaccess/hindrancetotradeADutchprohibitiononcoldcallingdeprivedDutchoperatorsofamarketingtechniqueand“thereforedirectlyaffectsaccesstothemarketinservicesintheotherMemberStates.”105In Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti Srl v. Giuseppe Calafiori106 an Italian law107providing tax assistance to be given exclusively by authorized Italian tax advice centers“completelypreventsaccesstothemarket.”108In Graf109 an Austrian law, genuinely non‐discriminatory, was held “too uncertain andindirect a possibility…to be…liable to hinder the freemovement” ofmigrant workers in

In Case C‐544/03, Mobistar SA v. Commune de Fleron and C‐545/03 Belgacom Mobile SA v. Commune deSchaerbeek, 2005 E.C.R. I‐7723, Belgium taxeswith respect tomobile phone operatorswere held not to be arestrictiononthefreedomtoprovideservices,para.32.

102 The Finnish measure “directly or indirectly prevents operators in other Member States from…making slotmachinesavailabletothepublic.”CaseC‐124/97,1999E.C.R.I‐6067,para.29.

103CaseC‐167/01,KamervanKoophandelenFabriekenvoorAmsterdamv. InspireArtLtd,2003E.C.R. I‐10155,para.107.

104Case346/06,DirkRüffertv.LandNiedersachsen2008E.C.R.I‐1989,para.14.

105“Andisthuscapableinhinderingintra‐Communitytradeinservices”.CaseC‐384/93,AlpineInvestmentsBVv.MinisterVanFinanciën,1995E.C.R.I‐1141,para.38.

106CaseC‐451/03,2006E.C.R.I‐2941.

107Inthecontextofarestrictionontherighttoprovideservicesandtherightofestablishment.

108CaseC‐451/03,ServiziAusiliariDottoriCommercialistiSrlv.GiuseppeCalafiori2006E.C.R.I‐2941,para.33.TheItalianlaw“isliabletomakemoredifficult,orevencompletelyprevent,theexercisebyeconomicoperatorsfromother Member States of their right to establish themselves in Italy with the aim of providing the services inquestion,”para.34.

109CaseC‐190/98,2000E.C.R.I‐493.


Austria.110Thedenialofcompensationonterminationofemploymentwastooremote inGraf111toaffectthefreemovementright;thelanguagedrivenbyaconcernforaccesstotheAustrianlabormarketbythemigrantnational.Constraintsimposedonthepostingofworkers to Luxembourg were held “likely tohinderthe exercise of freedom to provideservices.”1125.Restrictions/obstaclesJurisprudence to reinforce the observation that the focus of the Treaty right of freemovement is the restriction/obstacle to free movement rights is presented here. InQuestore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, for example, Italian legislation reserving to certainbodiestherighttotakebetsonsportingeventsandpreventingoperatorsinotherMemberStatesfromtakingbetswasheldarestrictiononthefreemovementofservices,113aswasBelgian legislationwhich requiredcableoperators tobroadcastprograms transmittedbycertainprivatebroadcasters.114Likewise,therequirementofpre‐conditionalestablishmentin the host state was held an obstacle to the provision of services with respect to thecontracting out of workers,115 and rules imposed by Belgium preventing a professionalfootballer fromplayingwithanewfootballclubunlessa transfer feehadbeenpaidwasheld to be an obstacle to the freedom of movement forworkers.116 More recently, inMarks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (HerMajesty’s Inspector of Taxes), a difference intreatment of tax losses between resident and non‐resident subsidiaries was held to

110 “Such an event is toouncertain and indirect a possibility for legislation tobe capableof being regarded asliabletohinderfreedomofmovementforworkers,”para.25.

111CaseC‐190/98,2000E.C.R.I‐493.

112CaseC‐319/06Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv.GrandDuchyofLuxemburg,2008E.C.R. I‐4323.,para.58.

113CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,1999I‐7289,para.28.InCase243/01Gambelliandothers,2003E.C.R.I‐13031para.49,Italianbettinglegislationwasheldarestrictionontherightofestablishmentandtherighttoprovideservices.

114 Case C‐250/06United Pan‐Europe Communications Belgium SA and Others v. Belgian State, 2007 E.C.R. I‐11135,para.38.

115CaseC‐493/99CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2001E.C.R.I‐8163,para. 18. In Joined Cases C‐51/96 & C‐191/97 Christelle Deliege v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplinesassocieesASBL,LiguebelgedejudoASBL,UnioneuropeennedejudoandFrançoisPacquee,2000E.C.R.I‐2549,arequirementofpriorauthorisationbeforeparticipationinaninternationaljudocompetitiondid“[not]constitutearestrictiononthefreedomtoprovideservices”(emphasisadded),para.69.

116C‐415/93UnionroyalebelgedessocietesdefootballassociationASBLv.Jean‐MarcBosman,RoyalclubliegeoisSA v. Jean‐Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations europeennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean‐MarcBosman,1995E.C.R.1‐4921,paras,100&104.


constitute a restrictionon the freedomof establishment,117 and inCriminal proceedingsagainst Claude Nadin, Nadin‐Lux SA and Jean‐Pascal Durre, the obligation to register acompanycarinDenmarkwasheldto“constituteabarrier…tofreedomofmovement”118ofself‐employedworkers.Finally,inCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Kingdomof Belgium the nationalmeasure imposing joint and several liability for the tax debts ofcontracting partners who were not registered in Belgium was held to “constitute arestrictiononthefreedomtoprovideservices”.119Germantaxation legislationwhichhadthe effect of deterring taxpayers resident in Germany from sending children to schoolsestablished in other Member States was held an obstacle to the free movement ofservices.120InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermanyanational rule which required practice as a psychotherapist under a German sicknesssecurityschemewhichincludedaGermanresidencerequirementwasheldarestrictiononthe freedom of establishment.121 Recently, a French rule which allowed only personsholdinganinseminator’slicensetoprovidetheserviceofartificial inseminationofbovineanimals,washeldanobstacletothefreemovementofestablishmentandservices.122III.CapitalThejurisprudencewithrespecttothefreemovementofcapitalhasembracedtheSägar123formulationdevelopedwithrespecttoservices.InCommissionv.Portugal,124forexample,itwasconfirmedthattheprohibitionofArticle56“goesbeyondthemereeliminationofunequal treatment,ongroundsofnationality,”125 theCourtholding that rules relating tothe acquisition by investors from other Member States “were liable to impede theacquisitionofsharesintheundertakings”126inthehoststate.Thelanguageofrestriction127

117CaseC‐446/03,2005E.C.R.I‐10837,para.34.

118JoinedCasesC‐151/04&C‐152/04,2005E.C.R.I‐11203,para.36.

119Arts.49&50EC.;CaseC‐433/04,2006E.C.R.I‐10653,para.32.

120 Case C‐76/05,Herbert Schwarz andMargaGootjes‐Schwarz v. Finanzamt BergischGladbach,2007 E.C.R. I‐06849,para.67.

121CaseC‐456/05,2007E.C.R.I‐10517,para.57.

122CaseC‐389/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,2008,E.C.R.I‐5337,para.66.

123CaseC‐76/90,1991I‐4221,para.12.

124CaseC‐367/98,2002E.C.R.I‐4731.

125See,supra,note125,para.44.


127SeeBARNARD(note47),528(OxfordUniversityPress2nded.,2007).


isincreasinglyused.TheCourthasheldunlawfulaprocedureofpriorauthorizationwhich“entails,by itsverypurpose,arestrictiononthefreemovementofcapital.”128So, too,aBelgianlawconcerningthedeductibilityofdebtswithrespecttoadeceased’sestatewasheldarestrictiononthefreemovementofcapital.129The languageofrestrictionvaries.TheGerman law,effectiveso that residentcompaniesholding depreciated shares in non‐resident companieswere in a less favorable situationthanthoseholdingsuchsharesinresidentcompanieswasheld“tohavearestrictiveeffectinrelationtocompaniesestablishedinotherStates,representing,asfarasthe latterareconcerned,anobstacletotheraisingofcapitalinGermany.”130Thedifferenceintreatmentwith respect toapportionmentof the taxburden,betweentheheirs residing in thehoststate and those who were not was held to be “a restriction on the free movement ofcapital.”131ADutchexclusionofaconcession(relatingtothetaxationatsourceofdividendsreceived abroad) in relation todividendsoriginating in certainMember States,washeld“liabletodeterinvestmentinaMemberStatesinwhichthetaxationofdividendsdoesnotgiverisetotheconcession,andaccordinglyconstitutesarestrictiononthefreemovementofcapital.”132IV.BeyondDiscrimination–KeyissuesAnumberofkeyissuesarisevis‐à‐visthefreemovementprovisionsoftheTreatyofRome,with respect to persons and services, in the context of the non‐discriminatory nationalmeasure.Thefirstissuearisesfromthepropositionthatthecauseoffreemovementrightsmaynothavebeenfurtheredbytheinitialfocusontheidentificationofdiscriminationinpersonsandservicesjurisprudence.Thesecondissueaddressesanapparentsubsumingofthe concept of discrimination within the umbrella of the non‐discriminatory restriction.Finally,theadhocpositioninrelationtothejurisprudenceofthefreemovementofgoodsisaddressed.

128CaseC‐302/97,KlausKonlev.RepublikÖsterreich,1999E.C.R.I‐3099,para.39.

129CaseC‐11/07,HansEckelkampandOthersv.BelgischeStaat,[2008]E.C.R.I‐6845,para.54.

130CaseC‐377/07,FinanzamtSpeyer‐Germersheimv.STEKOIndustriemontageGmbH,2009JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(FirstChamber),22January2009,para.27.

131CaseC‐43/07,D.M.M.A.Arens‐Sikkenv.StaatssecretarisvanFinanciën,[2008]E.C.R.I‐6887,para.46.

132C‐194/06StaatssecretarisvanFinanciënv.OrangeEuropeanSmallcapFundNV,2008E.C.R.I‐3747,para.56.


1.Discrimination–animproperfocus?There is some argument for a proposition that an initial focus of non‐discrimination onnationality grounds133 as a tool for the attainment of EC Treaty free movement rightsserved only to obfuscate the attainment of those rights. The recent redirection ofjurisprudencewithrespecttopersonsandservicesinfavoroftheexaminationofthenon‐discriminatorymeasurelendssupportforthisview.Whatever nomenclature used in that jurisprudence, be it manifested in impedingaccess/hindrance to trade or the terminology of “liable to hamper or to render lessattractive,”itiscrucialtoappreciatethatthecommonobjectiveinallsuchjurisprudenceistheremovaloftherestrictiontoexercisethefreemovementright.InSager134forexample,theprohibitedGerman legislation135wasa restrictionon therightof theUKcompany toprovidepatentrenewalservices,136theprohibitiononcoldcallinginAlpineInvestments,137similarlyidentifiedasarestrictiontotherighttoprovideservicesandtheminimumcapitalrequirementinrespectofcompanyformation,arestrictiononthefreemovementoftheworkerandofestablishment.138Theremovalatthenationallevelofsuchrestrictions139isclearlyatthefocusofrecentfreemovement jurisprudence.JudgmentssuchasZenatti140andMarks&Spencer141areyetfurtherevidenceofthis.Recent free movement jurisprudence lifts the enquiry beyond the realm of the mereidentification of discrimination. From the perspective of jurisprudence such as Zenatti142andMarks&Spencer,143 itseemsentirelylogicalthateliminationoftherestrictiontothefree movement right should form the central issue in such matters. Yet it is arguable,historically at least, that this has not always been reflected in free movement

133Art.12(ex6)EC.Alsoforexample,Art39(2)ECinrelationtotheworker.

134C‐76/90,1991E.C.R.1‐4221.



137CaseC‐384/93,AlpineInvestmentsBVv.MinisterVanFinanciën,1995E.C.R.I‐1141,para.39.

138CaseC‐167/01,KamervanKoophandelenFabriekenvoorAmsterdamv. InspireArtLtd,2003E.C.R. I‐10155,para.104.

139Orobstacle.

140CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,1999E.C.R.I‐7289.

141CaseC‐446/03,Marks&Spencerplcv.DavidHalsey(HerMajesty’sInspectorofTaxes),2005E.C.R.I‐10837.

142CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,1999E.C.R.I‐7289.

143CaseC‐446/03,Marks&Spencerplcv.DavidHalsey(HerMajesty’sInspectorofTaxes),2005E.C.R.I‐10837.


jurisprudence. The focus on the prohibition of “any discrimination on grounds ofnationality”144 as the solemodus operandi which for some time had been effective toextinguish other forms of enquiry, may perversely have ill‐served the cause of freemovement attainment by presenting restricted grounds for attack on the nationalmeasure. It is evident that the modus operandi represents only a partial solution toachieving free movement. The initial focus on the concept of discrimination arguablyserved only to obfuscate and to frustrate, at least in part, the real purpose of the freemovement provisions in relation to persons and services. It is puzzling why such anapproachwasadoptedbytheCourt,particularlyassomeofthejurisprudenceinquestionwas clearly orchestrated to attack the restriction to such rights and the concentrationsolely on prohibition of discrimination is not fully transparent of Treaty objectives withrespecttothefreemovementprovisions.2.Discriminationsubsumed?Thedisplacementoftheconceptofdiscriminationfromjurisprudenceconcernedwiththeattainment of free movement rights was noted by Advocate General Jacobs in R v.Danner.145InDanner,146Finishlegislationrelatingtovoluntarypensioninsurancescheme,itself overtly discriminatory147 was described as a restriction on the right to supplyservices.148Thesametraitisdisplayedinotherjudgments.InErichCiolav.LandVorarlbergfor example, an Austrian law relating to boat owners resident in other Member Statesclearlywasdirectlydiscriminatory; judgmenton those groundswas avoided. Itwasheldthat themoorings quotawas “contrary to the freedom to supply services.”149 InHanns‐MartinBachmannv.BelgianState,directlydiscriminatoryBelgianlegislationrelatingtothedeductibility of sickness contributions was held to constitute a restriction on the freemovement forworkers. Likewise, therewerediscriminatory issuessurrounding thegranttoasinglebodyoftherightstooperateslotmachines inMarkkuJuhaniLaara,CotswoldMicrosystemsLtdandOyTransatlanticSoftwareLtdv.Kihlakunnansyyttaja(Jyvaskyla)andSuomen valtio (Finnish State).150 However, in that instance, the national law wascategorisedas“animpedimenttothefreedomtoprovideservices…directlyor indirectly”

144Art.12(ex6)EC.

145CaseC‐136/00,Rv.Danner2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.36.

146Id.

147Case136/00Rv.Danner,2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.34.A.G.(opinionofAGJacobs).

148Id.,para.57.

149WithinthemeaningofArt49EC,para.34.

150CaseC‐124/97,1999E.C.R.I‐6067.


preventing migrant operators from making slot machines available to the public.151 InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,thenationalmeasurewhichprohibited the undertaking of private security work by migrant firms, though clearlydirectlydiscriminatorywasheldarestrictionontherightoffreemovement.InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofBelgium,152thenationalmeasureconcerningawithholding obligation and the imposition of joint liability in respect of contractors notregisteredinBelgiumwasclearlydirectlydiscriminatoryofthemigrantnationalsupplyingservicesinthatstate;themeasurewasidentifiednotasdiscriminatory,butasconstitutingarestrictionontheperformanceofthatTreatyright.153Similarly in relation to the free movement of goods, the recent spotlight on therestriction/obstacle has been at the expense of proceedingwith an analysis focusing ondiscrimination. For example, in Criminal proceedings against Jan‐Erik Anders Ahokainen,MatiLeppikJan‐ErikAndersAhokainen,theprior importauthorizationsystemwasclearlydirected at the imported product,154 and in Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerly TrofoSuper‐Markets AE155 specified the production conditions for all156 bakery products.Recently,inthecontextofcomplianceofallautomaticfiredetectionsystemswithBelgianlawtheCourtanalyzedtheobstacletothefreemovementofgoodsasbeing“applicablewithoutdistinction”tobothimportsandtothehostproduct.157This,itseems,providesaclear recognition that whilst restriction/obstacle maybe the umbrella language withrespect to Art 28 EC scrutiny, nonetheless the taint of discrimination in the nationalmeasurewilltriggertheapplicationoftheprohibition.Whilstanumberof judgments in relation to the freemovementofpersonsandservicesshelvethecategorizationofdiscrimination,nonethelessitisclearthatwithrespecttotheapplicationofthoseprovisions,theuseoftheprincipleofdiscriminationona“stand‐alonebasis”hasnotbeenabandoned.158Onthecontrary,theCourtwillrefertoitandinsomeinstanceswillapplyit.159Inrelationtothefreemovementoftheworkerforexample,the

151Id.,para.29.

152CaseC‐433/04,2006E.C.R.I‐10653.

153Id.,para.32.

154CaseC‐434/04,2006E.C.R.I‐9171,para.18.

155JoinedcasesC‐158/04&C‐159/04,2006E.C.R.I‐8135,para.20.

156Bothimportedandexportedproduct.

157C‐254/05CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofBelgium,2007E.C.R.I‐4269,para.32.

158NotedbyAdvocate‐GeneralJacobs.Case136/00,Rv.Danner,2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.A.G.35.

159AnobservationmadebyAdvocate‐GeneralJacobs.See,supra,note159,para.35.


courthasrecentlyconfirmedthatArticle39ECandArticle3ofRegulationNo1612/68160“guarantee…fully…equal treatment.”161 For example, in Commission of the EuropeanCommunities v. Hellenic Republic, a judgment handed down in 2001,162 an obligationimposed by Greece relating to the compulsory maintenance of emergency stocks ofpetroleumproductswashelddiscriminatoryofproductsfromrefineriessituated inotherMember States.163 Likewise, in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Elliniko Dimosio (GreekState),164nationaltaxationlegislationwashelddiscriminatory,165andinCommissionoftheEuropean Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany,166 decided in January 2006,167 areferencewasmadetotheoperationoftheprincipleofdiscrimination.168Inapertinentcomment,CraiganddeBúrcahaveexpressedtheviewthat“internal‐marketcase law on what constitutes discrimination, whether direct or indirect…is highlyconfused.”169PerhapstheapproachtakenbytheCourtintherecentjudgmentofContseSA, Vivisol Srl and Oxigen Salud SA v. Instituto Nacional de Gestion Sanitaria (Ingesa),formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud)170may go some way to address theseconcerns.InContse,171admissionconditionswithrespecttotendersforhomerespiratorytreatment were held “applicable without distinction” to any person concerned in thetenderingprocess.172 Itwas for “thenational court todeterminewhether that conditionmay in practice be met more easily by Spanish operators than by those established in

160 Regulation (EEC)No 1612of 15October 1968,Official Journal L 257, 19/10/1968p. 2.OJ Sp.Ed. 1968,No.L257/2,p.475.

161CaseC‐278/03,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,2005E.C.R.I‐3747,para.16, inrespect of an Italian failure “to have regard to those rights in respect of access of Community nationals torecruitmentcompetitionsforteachingstaffintheStateschoolsofthatMemberState.”

16225October2001.

163CaseC‐398/98,2001E.C.R.1‐7915,para.26.

164CaseC‐311/97,1999E.C.R.I‐2651.

165Id.,para.30.

166CaseC‐244/04,2006E.C.R.I‐885.

16712January2006.

168“Suchrestrictions,ifdiscriminatory,areprohibitedbyArticle49EC,unlesstheyarejustifiedbythecombinedprovisionsofArticles46ECand55EC,”para.12.

169BARNARD(note47),803(OxfordUniversityPress4thed.,2007).

170CaseC‐234/03,2005E.C.R.1‐9315.

171See,supra,note171.



anotherMember State”.173 The former relates to the non‐discriminatory restriction; thelatterreferenceimportsconnotationsofindirectdiscrimination.ItisarguablethatContse174goessomewaytotheadoptionofaworkableapproachinfreemovementjurisprudencewithrespecttopersonsandservices.Itappearstoaffirmthattheenquiry has been refocusedon the obstacle/restriction to the exercise of the right. Thispresents a capacity for an acknowledgement of the presence of discrimination in thenational measure where this is appropriate.175 The judgment in Contse176 may havesignaled an attempt to weave a seamless strand of enquiry within the jurisprudencerelating to persons and services; one capable of embracing recognition of the slivers ofdiscriminationandthestrandsofthenon‐discriminatoryrequirement.TheterminologyofrestrictionappearstobereflectiveofTreatyintent.Thesignificanceofthe approach taken in Contse177 is twofold. Not only is the language of jurisprudencealigned with that of the Treaty, but the pragmatic approach that Contse178 evidences aconceptualhonestywithrespecttheprocessofenquiryconductedintothelegalityofthenational measure. In this respect, it is an approach to be welcomed. In addition, it isarguablethattheadoptionoftherestrictionterminologybyjurisprudencerelatingtothefreemovementof capital gently reinforces a perceived convergenceof the tests for theapplicationofallTreatyfreemovementprovision.Theeffectofthismaybetorenderthepractical importance of the interaction between those differing Treaty provisions ratherlessimportantthanbefore.179The focus on the obstacle/restriction to the exercise of the free movement right withrespecttopersonsandservicesisimportantinonecrucialrespect;theissuerelatingtothejustificationofthenationalmeasure.Theeffectofthereclassificationonrightsjustificationisconsideredbelow.


174CaseC‐234/03,2005E.C.R.1‐9315.

175 This is to some extent confirmed by Case C‐471/04 Finanzamt Offenbach amMain‐Land v. Keller HoldingGmbH, 2006 E.C.R. I‐2107, para. 30. “The provisions concerning freedom of establishment are directed toensuringthatforeignnationalsandcompaniesaretreatedinthehostMemberStateinthesamewayasnationalsofthatState,theyalsoprohibittheMemberStateoforiginfromhinderingtheestablishmentinanotherMemberStateofoneofitsnationalsorofacompanyincorporatedunderitslegislation.”

176CaseC‐234/03,2005E.C.R.1‐9315.


178See,Supra,note177.

179SeeBARNARD(note47),555(OxfordUniversityPress2nded.,2007)


D.JustificationAnationalmeasurethatisheldunlawful,eitheronthegroundsofdiscrimination,180onthegroundsofnationality,orasarestrictiononthefreemovementright,maybejustifiedbytheMemberState.181The conceptof justification is an “assessmentofbalance;” the responseby theMemberStatevis‐à‐vistheinterestthatitispurportingtoprotectmustbeproportionate.Thetestof proportionalitywas succinctly expressed inCriminal proceedingsagainst J.J.J. VanderVeldt as “an obligation of that kind must be fulfilled by means which are not out ofproportion to the desired result andwhich hinder as little as possible the importationofproductswhichhavebeenlawfullymanufacturedandmarketedinotherMemberStates”(emphasisadded).182The frameworkwithinwhich theprocess183 of justificationoperateswith respect to freemovement provisions of Community law is distinguished by a division in treatmentbetween the discriminatory and the non‐discriminatory nationalmeasure. The former isfurthersubdividedandisdependentuponwhetherthediscriminationisdefactodirectorindirect.I.DirectdiscriminationWhere the national measure is directly discriminatory to the exercise of the freemovement right, the frameworkwith respect to justification is providedby reference toprovisionsoftheTreatyofRome.184

180Onthegroundsofnationality.SeeforexampleArt.12(ex6)EC.

181 Consideration of the issue of justification is not however obligatory. In Case 120/78 Rewe‐Zentral AG v.BundesmonopolverwaltungfurBranntwein,1979E.C.R.649,theissueofjustificationdidnotarise.ThefixingofaminimumalcoholcontentforalcoholicbeverageswasconsideredcontrarytoArt30(now28)EC,para.15.

182CaseC‐17/93,1994E.C.R.I‐3537,para.30.

183TheonusisontheMemberStatetoprovideproofofjustification.Forexample,inCaseC‐283/99Commissionof the European Communities v. Italian Republic, 2001 E.C.R. I‐4363, para. 26, it was held that Italy “had notshown the existence of any grounds of public policy or public security” which was capable of justifying theprovisionthatprivatesecurityworkbecarriedoutonlybyItaliansecurityfirmswhichemployedItaliannationals.The sameapplies to the justifications in relation to the freemovementof goods. For example in Case 121/85Conegate Limited v. HMCustoms& Excise, 1986 E.C.R. 1007, paras. 15& 16 theUnited Kingdom failed in anattempted justification, national law permitted the host national to supply the same goods; theywere freelyavailableinthatstate.

184With respect to the feemovement of goods, Art 30 (ex 36) EC; to theworker, Art 39(3) (ex 48(3)) EC; theprovisionofservices,Art55(ex66)ECandtherightofestablishment,Art46(ex56)EC.


1.GoodsThe justification of the national rule which is directly discriminatory of the importedproduct is by reference to the provisions contained in Art 30 (ex 36) E.C.185 The Treatygroundsforjustificationincludeinteralia“publicpolicy,publicsecurityorpublichealth.”186It has been held that the grounds listed in Art 30 (ex 36) E.C. are exhaustive, they“constitute…aderogation from thebasic rule thatall obstacles to the freemovementofgoodsbetweenMemberStates shallbeeliminatedandmustbe interpretedstrictly…Theexceptions listed therein cannot be extended to cases other than those specifically laiddown.”187 For example, “neither the protection of consumers nor the fairness ofcommercialtransactionsare includedamongsttheexceptionssetout inArticle36,thosegrounds cannot be relied upon as such in connection with that Article.”188Underlyingtheprocessofjustificationofnationalmeasuresrelatingtothefreemovementofgoodsistheprincipleofproportionality.InRv.HennandDarby,189forexample,atotalban on imports of pornographic materials was held proportionate. The prohibition onimport of such materials genuinely applied for the protection of public morality. Thatground, however, could not apply where similar goods to the prohibited imports werefreelymanufacturedintheU.K.190InCommissionof the EuropeanCommunities v.Hellenic Republic,191 ameasure requiringthemaintenanceofemergencystocksofpetroleumproductswasheldnotproportionate;thestockscouldhavebeenequallyobtainedontheopenmarketfromotherproducers.192In Klas Rosengren and others v. Riksåklagaren, a Swedish prohibition on the import of


186Art.30(ex36)ECprovides:“TheprovisionsofArts28and29shallnotprecludeprohibitionsorrestrictionsonimports, exportsor goods in transit justifiedongroundsofpublicmorality, public policyorpublic security theprotectionofhealthandlifeofhumans,animalsorplantstheprotectionofnationaltreasurespossessingartistic,historic or archaeological value or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions orrestrictionsshallnot,however,constituteameansofarbitrarydiscriminationoradisguisedrestrictionontradebetweenMemberStates.”

187Case113/80,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Ireland,1981E.C.R.1625,para.7.Case46/76W.J.G.Bauhuisv.TheNetherlandsState,1977E.C.R.5,para.12.

188Case113/80,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Ireland,1981E.C.R.1625,para.8.

189Case34/79,Reginav.MauriceDonaldHennandJohnFrederickErnestDarby,1979E.C.R.3795,para.22.

190Case121/85,ConegateLimitedv.HMCustomsandExercise,1986E.C.R.1007.

191CaseC‐398/98,2001E.C.R.1‐7915.

192 Case C‐398/98Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic 2001 E.C.R. 1‐7915, para. 44(opinionofAGRuiz‐JaraboColomer).


alcoholbyprivateindividualstoprotectyoungpeopleagainsttheharmfuleffectsofsuchconsumptionwasheldtobedisproportionate.193Thisobjectivecouldhavebeenachievedbyrequiringthepurchasertocertifyonimportthathewasmorethan20yearsofage.1942.Persons&ServicesDirectdiscriminationonaccountoftheorigin195ofthemigrantnationalisjustifiableonly196onTreatygroundsof“publicpolicy,publicsecurityorpublichealth.”197Economicaimsarenot included,198 nor are grounds of cultural policy.199 In the context of persons andservices,ithasbeenheldthatTreatyderogations“mustbeinterpretedstrictly.”200Thelossof free movement rights, for example through deportation, representing “the mostdraconianstepsahoststatecantake.”201Aswiththefreemovementofgoods,withrespecttopersonsandservices,theoperationoftheprincipleofproportionalityisthecornerstoneofthejustificationprocess.TheTreaty

193Case,C‐170/04KlasRosengrenandothersv.Riksåklagaren2007E.C.R.I‐4071,para.58.

194Case,C‐170/04KlasRosengrenandothersv.Riksåklagaren2007E.C.R.I‐4071,para.56.

195“Andwhicharethereforediscriminatory”.Case352/85,BondvanAdverteerdersandothersv.TheNetherlandsState,1998E.C.R.2085,para.32.

196CaseC‐288/89,StichtingCollectieveAntennevoorzieningGoudaandothersv.CommissariaatvoordeMedia,1991E.C.R.I‐4007,para.11.ForexampleinCase352/85,BondvanAdverteerdersandothersv.TheNetherlandsState,1998E.C.R.2085,paras.32&33inrelationtoservices,onlythegroundof“publicpolicy”wasavailableasjustification.

197ProvidedbyArt.39(2)(ex48(2))EC;Art.46(exArt56)EC;Art.55(ex66)EC.

198“Suchasthatofsecuringforanationalpublicfoundationalltherevenuefromadvertisingintendedespeciallyfor the public of the Member State in question.” Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. TheNetherlandsState,1998E.C.R.2085,para.34.SeealsoCaseC‐288/89,StichtingCollectieveAntennevoorzieningGouda and others v. Commissariaat voor deMedia,1991 E.C.R. I‐4007, para. 11; Case C‐17/92,Federacion deDistribuidores Cinematograficos v. Estado Español et Union de Productores de Cine y Television, 1993 E.C.R. I‐2239,para.16.

199 In the context of the provisions of services. Case C‐17/92,Federacion deDistribuidores Cinematograficos v.EstadoEspañoletUniondeProductoresdeCineyTelevision,1993E.C.R.I‐2239,para.20.Thesameobservationismadeinrelationtotherightofestablishmentandart46(ex56)ECbyAdvocateGeneralM.JeanMischo.Case3/88,ReDataProcessingContracts:E.C.Commissionv.Italy,1989E.C.R.4035,para.33.

200 “So that [the] scope of the freemovement provisions cannot be determined unilaterally by eachMemberState”. Case 41/74,Yvonne vanDuyn v. HomeOffice, 1974 E.C.R. 1337, para. 18; Case 147/86,Commission v.Greece,1998E.C.R.1637,para.7;CaseC‐114/97,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofSpain,1998E.C.R.1‐6717,para.34.

201See CATHERINE BARNARD, THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE EU: THE FOUR FREEDOMS BARNARD (note 47).253 (OxfordUniversityPress2nded.,2007).


justifications“mustbeinterpretedinsuchawaythatitseffectsarelimitedtothatwhichisnecessary in order to protect the interests which it seeks to safeguard.”202 Dutch rules,such as those relating to the distribution of cable programs transmitted by migrantbroadcasters203 inBond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State,204 werehelddisproportionatetotheintendedobjective,“thatofmaintainingthenon‐commercialand, thereby,pluralisticnatureof theNetherlandsbroadcastingsystem.”205 InBond,206 itwasadmitted207“that thereare less restrictive,non‐discriminatorywaysofachieving theintendedobjectives.”208InD.H.M.Segersv.BestuurvandeBedrijfsverenigingvoorBank‐enVerzekeringswezen,GroothandelenVrijeBeroepen,209 thediscriminatorytreatmentofmigrant companies could not be justified on Treaty grounds, the Dutch response wasdisproportionate to the need to combat fraud. In Segers, itwas held “Although [it]maythereforejustifyadifferenceoftreatmentincertaincircumstances,therefusaltoaccordasicknessbenefittoadirectorofacompanyformedinaccordancewiththelawofanotherMember State cannot constitute an appropriate measure in that respect.”210II.Indirectdiscrimination1.GoodsNational rules with respect to goods are not prohibited by art 28 EC211 where they arenecessaryinordertosatisfy“mandatoryrequirements.”212Theconceptofthe“mandatory

202Case352/85,BondvanAdverteerdersandothersv.TheNetherlandsState,1998E.C.R.2085,para.36.

203Making distribution of cable programmes transmitted by broadcasters established in otherMember Statesconditional upon the absence of advertisements together with the prohibition of the subtitling of thoseprogrammesinDutch.TheDutchruleswerethereforediscriminatoryinrelationtoorigin.

204 Case 352/85, Bond van Adverteerders and others v. The Netherlands State, 1998 E.C.R. 2085, para. 37, inrelationtoArticle56(now46)EC.

205Id.,para.35.


207BytheDutchGovernment.

208“Forinstance,broadcastersofcommercialprogrammesestablishedinotherMemberStatescouldbegivenachoicebetweencomplyingwithobjectiverestrictionsonthetransmissionofadvertising,suchasaprohibitiononadvertisingcertainproducts,”id.,para.37.

209Case79/85,1986E.C.R.2375,para.13.

210Id.,para.17.

211Seesupra,note1Art28(ex30)EC.p.47.


requirement”213 was introduced in Rewe‐Zentral A.G. v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung furBranntwein.214 It is the benchmark of the justification of indistinctly discriminatorymeasureswithrespecttothefreemovementofgoods.InRewetheattemptedjustificationofthemandatoryfixingofminimumalcoholcontentswasonthegroundsofthefairnessofcommercial transactions.215 Itwas held, “Obstacles tomovementwithin the Communityresulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of theproducts in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may…[relate] inparticular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, thefairness of commercial transactions and the defense of the consumer.”216 However, themeaning of “mandatory requirement” is elastic in nature. The concept has since beenextended,forexample,toembracetheprotectionoftheenvironment,217pressdiversity,218andtheprotectionofthecinemainFrance.219Relatedtotheconceptofthemandatoryrequirementistheapplicationoftheprincipleofproportionality.“IfaMemberStatehasachoicebetweenvariousmeasuresforachievingthe same aim, it should choose the means which least restricts the free movement ofgoods.”220Itisatestimportingconsiderationsoflegalityandmerit.InRewe221forexample, 212 Case 120/78, Rewe‐Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8.Increasingly,thetermsof“imperativerequirements”or“overridingreasons inthegeneral interest”areusedinthejudgments.

213Thefundamentalassumptionisthatthereshouldbe“novalidreasonwhy,providedthat[goods]…havebeenlawfullyproducedandmarketed inoneof theMemberStates, [they] shouldnotbe introduced intoanyotherMember State.”Case 120/78, Rewe‐Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649,para.14. It isapresumptionthatcanberebuttedwhenfurthermeasuresarenecessary toprotectthe interestconcerned, the actions of theMember Statemust beproportionate. The burden of proving that ameasure isnecessary is onerous. See for exampleCase 16/83,Criminal proceedings against Karl Prantl, 1984 E.C.R. 1299;Case182/84,Criminal proceedingsagainstMiroBV,1985E.C.R. 3731;Case286/86,Ministerepublic v.GerardDeserbais,1988E.C.R.4907.NotealsoCaseC‐317/91,DeutscheRenaultAGv.AUDIAG,1993E.C.R.I‐6227.

214Case120/78,1979E.C.R.649,para.8.

215Id.,para.12.

216 Id., para 8. The defences of consumer protection and fair trading are only available to the “mandatoryrequirement”.Case434/85,AllenandHanburysLtdv.Generics(UK)Ltd,1988E.C.R.1245,para.35;Case113/80,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Ireland,1981E.C.R.1625,para.10.

217 On the ground that protection of the environment is “one of the Community’s essential objectives”. Case302/86,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark,1988E.C.R.4607,paras.8‐9.Inthisjudgmentnationalrulesestablishingadepositandreturnsystemforemptydrinkscontainerswerejustified,para.13.

218Case368/95,VereinigteFamiliapressZeitungsverlags‐undvertriebsGmbHv.HeinrichBauerVerlag,1997E.C.R.I‐3689,para.34.

219Case60/84,CinethequeSAandothersv.Federationnationaledescinemasfrançais,1985E.C.R.2605,para.23.

220Case302/86,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark,1988E.C.R.4607,para.6.


thenationallawcouldnotbejustified;therequirementsrelatingtotheminimumalcoholcontentwere held not to serve a purposewhich could be deemed to be in the generalinterest.222 InCinethequeSAandothersv.Federationnationaledescinemas français, forexample,aFrenchmeasure,designedtoencouragethecreationofcinematographicworksirrespectiveoforigin,whichgaveforalimitedperiodapriorityofdistributionthroughthatmedium,washeldproportionate.223Thesystemwasdesignedtoencouragethecreationofcinematographic works irrespective of origin through that medium. In Walter RauLebensmittelwerke v. De Smedt PVBA, national law requiredmargarine to be packed incubeshapedboxessoconsumerscoulddistinguishbetweenmargarineandbutter.Itwasheldthatthesameobjectivecouldhavebeenachievedbyothermeans(suchaslabeling)whichwouldbelessofahindrancetotrade.224In Ministere public v. Gerard Deserbais, in relation to a French measure imposing aminimum fat content for Edam cheese, it was held that “TheMember State intowhichtheyare importedcannotpreventthe importationandmarketingofsuchcheeseswhereadequate information for the consumer is ensured.”225 In Commission of the EuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,ageneralbanonadditivesinbeerwasheldnotproportionate226tothestatedaimoftheprotectionof“publichealth.”227Thebanhadappliedtoalladditives,228not justthoseforwhichtherewasconcretescientificevidenceofrisk.229Bycontrast,inCriminalproceedingsagainstDitlevBluhme,230nationalprotectionof theDanishbeewas justifiedon the groundsof theprotectionof the “health and lifeof…animals”.231TheestablishmentofaprotectionareafortheLsobrownbeeaimedatthesurvivalofthatspecieswas“anappropriatemeasureinrelationtotheaimpursued.”232

221Case120/78,Rewe‐ZentralAGv.BundesmonopolverwaltungfurBranntwein,1979E.C.R.649.

222Id.,para.14.

223Case60/84,1985E.C.R.2605,para.23.

224Case261/81,1982E.C.R.3961,para.20.

225Case286/86,1988E.C.R.4907,para.12.

226Case178/84,1987E.C.R.1227,para.53.

227Art.36(now30EC).Case178/84,1987E.C.R.1227,para.26.

228LawfullyincirculationinotherMemberStates,Id.,para.47.


230CaseC‐67/97,1998E.C.R.I‐8033,para.37.

231Art.36(now30)EC.

232CaseC‐67/97,CriminalproceedingsagainstDitlevBluhme,1998E.C.R.I‐8033,para.37.


2.Persons&servicesWhere the national measure is indirectly discriminatory of the exercise of the freemovementrightwithrespect topersonsandservices, itmaybe“objectively justified.”233The grounds of justification are broad and not confined to the Treaty exceptions. InFinanzamtKoln‐Altstadtv.RolandSchumacker234Belgiandiscriminationdirectedatacross‐borderworkerwhocouldnotbenefit fromtaxallowancescould incertaincircumstancesbe justifiedwhere, forexample, therewasadifference inpositionbetweenresidentandnon‐resident worker. Likewise, it has been held that a national law which similarlydiscriminatesagainstthemigrantinthecontextofestablishment235andservicescouldbeobjectivejustified.Forexample,JohannesHenricusMariavanBinsbergenv.BestuurvandeBedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid contains a reference to “professional rulesjustifiedbythegeneralgood.”236The process of justification in the theatre of free movement of persons is inextricablylinkedtotheapplicationoftheconceptofproportionality.InJohnO’Flynnv.AdjudicationOfficer,237inrelationtotheworker,forexample,aUnitedKingdommeasurerelatingtothepayment of burial expenses was held not proportionate; entitlement to a lump sumpayment,paidwithreferencetoUnitedKingdomburialcostswouldhavesufficed.238Inthesame way, an Italian measure placing a six year limit on the employment of foreignlanguage assistants was held not necessary to enable universities to terminate thecontractsofteachingstaffthatprovedincompetent.239InCleanCarAutoserviceGesmbHv.Landeshauptmann von Wien,240 the requirement of residence in the host state so thatmanagerscouldbeservedwithnoticeoffinescouldhaveequallyhavebeenachievedbynotificationattheregisteredoffice.Inrelationtorightsofestablishment,Dutchconditionsimposedonthestructureofforeignbroadcastingbodiesweredisproportionateinthecontextofsafeguardingthefreedomofexpression; that aim could have been achieved by the reformulating the composition of

233ForexampleCaseC‐237/94,JohnO’Flynnv.AdjudicationOfficer,1996E.C.R.I‐2617,para.23.

2341995E.C.R.I‐225,para.40.SeealsoCaseC‐204/90,Bachmannv.Belgium,1992E.C.R.I‐249,para.28.

235Case111/85,LynneWatsonandAlessandroBelmann,1976E.C.R.1185,para.22.

236Case33/74,1974E.C.R.1299,para.12.

237See,supra,note234.para.23.

238Id.,para.29.

239Case33/88,PilarAllueandCarmelMaryCoonanv.UniversitadeglistudidiVenezia,1989E.C.R.1591,para.16.

240CaseC‐350/96,1998E.C.R.1‐2521.


national broadcasting bodies.241 Similarly, the scale of restrictions, the requirement of alicense and examination success as pre‐conditions for tourist guides in Italy was helddisproportionateinthecontextofachievingthepurportedobjectiveofpreservingculturalheritage.242III.Thenon‐discriminatoryrequirement1.GoodsInrecentjurisprudencewherethenationalmeasurehasbeenclassifiedasarestrictiononfreemovementrightsrelatingtogoods,justificationhasbeenmeasuredeither“byoneofthe public‐interest grounds set out in Article 30 E.C. or by one of the overridingrequirements laid down by the Court’s case‐lawwhere the national rules are applicablewithoutdistinction.”243Wherethemeasureistaintedbydirectdiscrimination,thegroundsof Art 30 E.C. are available for justification. In other instances, recourse to “overridingrequirements”willbeappropriate.a)PublicinterestgroundsWherethereisdefactodirectdiscriminationinthenationalmeasureheldrestrictiveofthefreemovementofgoods,theprocessofjustificationappearstobebyreferenceto“publicinterest”groundsofArt30EC.InCriminalproceedingsagainstJan‐ErikAndersAhokainenandMati Leppik244 for example, a Finish system relating to the commercial importation

241CaseC‐288/89,StichtingCollectieveAntennevoorzieningGoudaandothersv.CommissariaatvoordeMedia,1991E.C.R.I‐4007paras.22&24.

242CaseC‐180/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv. ItalianRepublic,1991E.C.R.I‐709,para.24.SeealsoCaseC‐154/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,1991E.C.R.I‐659,para.21.andCaseC‐198/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.HellenicRepublic,1991E.C.R.I‐727,para.21.

243 Joined cases C‐158/04 & C‐159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. EllinikoDimosioandNomarchiakiAftodioikisi, 2006E.C.R. I‐8135,para.20;CaseC‐54/05,Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv.RepublicofFinland,2007E.C.R.I‐2473,para.38.Theterminologyusedinthelatterinstancewasthatof“imperativerequirements.”SeealsoCase120/78,Rewe‐Zentral(CassisdeDijon),1979E.C.R.649,para.8.andC‐297/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,2007E.C.R.I‐7467,para.74.

244CaseC‐434/04,2006E.C.R.I‐9171.


alcoholicdrinks245wasconsideredbyreferencetotheArt30ECgroundofpublicpolicyandtheprotectionofhealth.246b)OverridinginterestsDeterminationof“overridingrequirements”isreferencedto“themeaningofthecase‐lawinitiated by Rewe‐Zentral247 (Cassis de Dijon).”248 InAlfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerlyTrofo Super‐Markets AE,249 for example, it was held in relation to the baking of frozenbreadwithoutalicense,250thattheprocessofjustificationoftheGreekmeasurecouldbebyreferencetooneoftheoverridingrequirements.251InrelationtovariousGermanmeasuresrelatingtoavoidingtheenvironmental impactofpackaging, the ground for justification252 was based on the protection of theenvironment,253aswereDutchpracticesmakingtheexistenceofanactualnutritionalneedapreconditionforthegrantingofderogationfromtheapplicationofnationalmeasures.254 245Importingissuesofdirectdiscrimination.Id.,para.6.

246Id.,para.23.

247 CaseC‐120/78,Rewe‐ZentralAGv.Bundesmonopolverwaltung furBranntwein (CassisdeDijon), 1979E.C.R.649,para.8.

248CaseC‐441/04,A‐PunktSchmuckhandelsGmbHv.ClaudiaSchmidtpara.26.SeealsoJoinedcasesC‐158/04&C‐159/04, Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE and Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v. Elliniko Dimosio and NomarchiakiAftodioikisi,2006E.C.R.I‐8135,para.20.

249JoinedcasesC‐158/04&C‐159/04,2006E.C.R.I‐8135,para.20.

250Themeasurewasclearlyindirectlydiscriminatory.Id.,para.10.

251Inthisinstance,“consumerorhealthprotection”.See,supra,note250,para.23.

252 In circumstancewhere themarketingof thenational drinks and thatof the importwasnot affected in thesamemanner.CaseC‐463/01, Commissionof theEuropeanCommunities v. FederalRepublicofGermany,2004E.C.R.I‐11705,para.69.

253Id.,para.75.Onsimilarfacts,seealsoCaseC‐309/02RadlbergerGetrankegesellschaftmbH&Co.andS.SpitzKG v. Land Baden‐Wurttemberg, 2004 E.C.R. I‐11763, para. 74. The German rules applied without distinction,para.61.

254 Themeasurewas indirectlydiscriminatory; “theprotectionof humanhealth is oneof theobjectivesof theCommunitypolicyontheenvironment”.CaseC‐41/02,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Kingdomofthe Netherlands, 2004 E.C.R. I‐11375, paras. 23 & 45. See also Case C‐150/00, Commission of the EuropeanCommunities v. Republic of Austria, 2004 ECR I‐3887, para 84; Case C‐387/99 Commission of the EuropeanCommunities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 2004 E.C.R. I‐3751, para. 67; Case C‐24/00, Commission of theEuropean Communities v. French Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I‐1277, para. 53; Case C‐270/02, Commission of theEuropean Communities v. Italian Republic, 2004 E.C.R. I‐1559, para. 23; Case C‐95/01, Criminal proceedingsagainst John Greenham and Leonard Abel, 2004 E.C.R. I‐1333, para. 34; Case C‐192/01, Commission of theEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark,2003E.C.R.I‐9693,para.42.


Ithasbeenheldthata“legitimateaimofdemonstration”maybeanobjectiveofgeneralinterest.255InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofSpain256theissueofthe justification of the prohibition onmarketing of cocoa products containing fats otherthancocoabutterwasbyreferenceto“consumerprotection.”c)DeterminationatthenationallevelTheavailabilityofgroundsforjustification,thechoicebetweenthepublicinterestgroundsofArt30ECorthereference intheprocesstotheuseof”imperativerequirements”hasrecently(insomeinstances)beendependentupondeterminationbythereferringcourtofthe nature of the national measure.257 It is a determination pertaining to the issue ofdiscrimination. The referencewill be to imperative requirements if the “court finds thatthe prohibition…affects products originating from other Member States more than itaffectsdomesticproductsasregardsaccesstothedomesticmarket.”258II.PersonsandservicesInthecontextofthejustificationofthenon‐discriminatoryrequirement,andininstanceswhereinthenomenclatureofrestrictionhasbeenusedinrelationtopersonsandservices,ithasbeenheld that“It is for thenational court toverifywhether,having regard to thespecific rules governing its application, the national legislation is genuinely directed torealizingtheobjectiveswhicharecapableofjustifyingit.”259Theprocessofjustificationofthenon‐discriminatoryrequirementwithrespecttopersonsandservicesthusinvolvesidentificationofaninterestthatisworthyofprotection.260The 255 Case C‐112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v. Republik Osterreich, 2003E.C.R.I5659,para.80.

256CaseC‐12/00,2003E.C.R.I‐459,para.83.

257CaseC‐441/04,A‐PunktSchmuckhandelsGmbHv.ClaudiaSchmidt,2006E.C.R.I‐2093,para.26.

258Id.,para.26.inthecontextofnationalmeasuresconcerningpromotionalpartiesheldinrelationtothesellingofjewelry.

259 CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVerona v.Diego Zenatti, 1999 I‐7289, para. 37. See alsoCaseC‐446/03Marks&Spencer plc v. David Halsey (HerMajesty”s Inspector of Taxes), 2005 E.C.R. I‐10837, para. 35; Case C‐250/95,FuturaParticipationsandSinger,1997E.C.R.I‐2471,para.26;CaseC‐9/02,DeLasteyrieduSaillant,2004E.C.R.I‐2409,para.49;CaseC‐19/92,DieterKrausv. LandBaden‐Wurttemberg,E.C.R.I‐1663,para.32;CaseC‐124/97,Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v. Kihlakunnansyyttaja(Jyvaskyla)andSuomenvaltio(FinnishState),1999E.C.R.I‐6067,para.36.

260Togetherwithanevaluationof theproportionalityof theappropriatenessof such responseby theMemberStateinthecircumstances.


grounds for justification are outlined in Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degliAvvocatieProcuratoridiMilano.261Themeasures“mustbeappliedinanon‐discriminatorymanner262theymustbejustifiedbyimperativerequirementsinthegeneralinterest,theymustbesuitableforsecuringtheattainmentoftheobjectivewhichtheypursueandtheymust not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.”263 It appears that theGebhard264 test applies universally across the free movement provisions relating topersons.265 This has recently been confirmed inCorporación Dermoestética SA v. ToMeGroup AdvertisingMediawhich held that “the protection of public health is one of theoverridingreasonsbasedonthegeneralinterest.”266IntheapplicationoftheGebhard testwithrespecttothe issueof justification,theCourthasused an interchangeablenomenclatureof public/general interest. The applicationofthisstandardisexaminedbelow.a)PublicinterestThe‘publicinterest’isaneclecticandversatileconcept.267Withrespecttotheprovisionofservices, for example,Manfred Sager v. Dennemeyer& Co. Ltd held that justification ofpatent monitoring legislation would be measured by reference to “imperative reasonsrelatingtothepublicinterest.”268

261CaseC‐55/94,1995E.C.R.I‐4165,para.37.

262Gebhard,arosefromthesuspensionofaGermannationalbytheMilanbarfortheuseofthetitleofthatbar.

263See,supra,note262,para37.SeealsoC‐19/92,Krausv.LandBaden‐Wuerttemberg,1993E.C.R.I‐1663,para.32.


265Crossreferencehas forexamplebeenmadewithrespecttotheworker inC‐415/93,UnionroyalebelgedessocietesdefootballassociationASBLv.Jean‐MarcBosman,RoyalclubliegeoisSAv.Jean‐MarcBosmanandothersandUniondesassociationseuropeennesdefootball (UEFA)v.Jean‐MarcBosman,1995E.C.R. I‐4921.See, interalia,thejudgmentinCaseC‐19/92KrausvLandBaden‐Wuerttemberg,1993E.C.R.I‐1663,para.32.andCaseC‐55/94ReinhardGebhardvConsigliodell'OrdinedegliAvvocatieProcuratoridiMilano,1995E.C.R.I‐04165,paras.37and104.

266CaseC‐500/06,CorporaciónDermoestéticaSAv.ToMeGroupAdvertisingMedia2008E.C.R.,para.37.

267SeeforexamplethelistgiveninCaseC‐288/89,StichtingCollectieveAntennevoorzieningGoudaandothersv.CommissariaatvoordeMedia,1991E.C.R.I‐4007,para.14.

268CaseC‐76/90,1991E.C.R.1‐4221,para.15.Themeasureissuedidnotpassthetestofproportionality,para.20.


The concept has been applied to the award of academic titles,269 the protection ofworkers,270 the protection of consumers,271 the maintenance of order in society,272 andconcerns relating tosocialpolicyand thepreventionof fraud.273 Ithasencompassed theobjectiveofguaranteeing thequalityof skilledwork,274 theprotectionofconsumersandthemaintenanceoforderinsocietyinthecontextofthepreventionofmigrantoperatorsfromtakingbetsinItaly,275andtheprovisionoflegaladvicebyqualifiedpersons.276Intothepublicinterestcategoryhasalsofallentheprotectionofinvestorconfidence,theprohibitionof“coldcalling”intheDutchfinancialmarkets,277a“properappreciationoftheartisticandarchaeologicalheritageofacountry,”278themaintenanceofalevelofserviceandoccupational skills in theskilled tradesector,279and theneed toaccess theaptitudeand ability of persons called to practice as advocates.280 Further, in the differential taxtreatmentofcompanylosses,economicobjectiveshavebeenheldtofallwithinthe“publicinterest”criteria.281

269CaseC‐19/92,DieterKrausv.LandBaden‐Wurttemberg,1993E.C.R.I‐1663,para.33.

270CaseC‐79/01,PayrollDataServices(Italy)SrlandOthers,2002E.C.R.1‐8923,para.31.

271 Consider for example, in relation to the remuneration of sight accounts in euros, the encouragement ofmediumandlongtermsavings.CaseC‐442/02,Caixa‐BankFrancev.MinisteredeL”Economie,desFinances,DeL”Industrie(BanqueFédéraledesBanquesPopulairesandOthers),2004E.C.R.I‐8961,para.24.

272 Case C‐124/97, Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v.Kihlakunnansyyttaja(Jyvaskyla)andSuomenvaltio(FinnishState),1999E.C.R.I‐6067,para.33.

273CaseC‐275/92,HerMajesty’sCustomsandExcisev.GerhartSchindlerandJorgSchindler,1994E.C.R.1‐1039,para.63.

274CaseC‐215/01,BrunoSchnitzer,2003E.C.R.I‐14847,para.35.

275CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,1999I‐7289,para.36.

276C‐76/90,ManfredSagerv.Dennemeyer&Co.Ltd,19911‐4221,para.16.

277CaseC‐384/93,AlpineInvestmentsBVv.MinisterVanFinanciën,1995E.C.R.I‐1141,para.39.

278CaseC‐198/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.HellenicRepublic,1991E.C.R.1‐727,para.21.SeealsoCaseC‐153/02,ValentinaNeri v.EuropeanSchoolofEconomics (ESE InsightWorldEducationSystemLtd),2003E.C.R.1‐13555,para.45withrespecttoensuringhighstandardsinUniversityeducation.

279CaseC‐58/98,JosefCorsten,2000E.C.R.I‐7919,para.33.

280CaseC‐250/03,Mauriv.MinisteroDellaGiustiziaandCommissionePerGliEsamiDiAvvocatoPressoLaCorteD’AppelloDiMilano,2005E.C.R.I‐1267,para.11.

281CaseC‐446/03,Marks&Spencerplcv.DavidHalsey (HerMajesty’s InspectorofTaxes),2005E.C.R. I‐10837,para.51.


b)GeneralinterestInGebhard, inthecontextoftherecognitionofknowledge inaprofessionalcontext, thelanguage of “imperative requirements in the general interest”282 has been used. In therelatively recent judgment of Commission v. Greece, the objective of protecting publichealth was described in the same manner283 and in Stichting CollectieveAntennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Commissariaat voor de Media, conditionsimposedbyHollandwhichaffectedthestructureofforeignbroadcastingbodieswerenotregardedasbeingobjectivelynecessarytosafeguardthegeneralinterestinmaintaininganationalradiosystemwhichsecuredpluralism.284In other instances, both the terms public and general interest have been usedinterchangeably. In Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy ofLuxembourg,285 for example, in relation to the social protection ofworkers the nationalmeasureserved“anobjectiveofgeneralinterest,”286butcouldbejustifiedbyreferenceto“overridingrequirementrelatingtothepublicinterest.”287There appears also to be a flexible approach to the application of the public/generalinterest criterion. InSchindler,288 theUnitedKingdom’s justification relating to the socialills of gambling was accepted by the Court, despite the knowledge that the NationalLotteriesActhadbeenpassedbyParliament.Bycontrast, inQuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,289 an Italian law prohibiting the taking of bets on sporting competitions, exceptthroughspeciallyappointedbodieswasthoroughlyinvestigatedbytheCourt.

282CaseC‐55/94,ReinhardGebhardv.Consigliodell”OrdinedegliAvvocatieProcuratoridiMilano,1995E.C.R.I‐4165,para.37.

283CaseC‐140/03,Commissionv.Greece,2005E.C.R.I‐3177,para.34.

284CaseC‐288/89,1991E.C.R.I‐4007,para.25.

285CaseC‐445/03,2004E.C.R.1‐10191,para.21.

286Id.,para.14.


288CaseC‐275/92,HerMajesty’sCustomsandExcisev.GerhartSchindlerandJorgSchindler,1994E.C.R.I‐1039,para.43.

289CaseC‐67/98,1999I‐7289.Theseissuesweresenttothenationalcourtfordetermination,para.37.


III.CapitalThe justificationofnational rulesprohibitedbythe freemovementprovisionsrelatingtocapitalhavefollowedtheapproachtakeninGebhard.290Thejurisprudencewithrespecttothe freemovement of capital is however less extensive than that relating to the otherfreedoms,primarilydue to thebreathof theexpressderogations listed inArticle 58EC.ThatArticleprovidesthatthememberstateshall:“[T]akeallrequisitemeasurestopreventinfringementsofnationallawandregulations,inparticularinthefieldoftaxationandtheprudentialsupervisionoffinancialinstitutions,orto lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes ofadministrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified ongroundsofpublicpolicyorpublicsecurity.”There are similarities and overlaps between the derogations here, and those foundelsewhere in the Treaty. The Court draws on the jurisprudence relating to the otherfreedomswheninterpretingthederogationsrelatingtoArticle58EC.291E.ProportionalityI.GoodsInthecontextofanassessmentofproportionalityofmeasuresdeemed‘restrictive’ofthefreemovementofgoods,whereeitherapublic interestgroundoran imperative interestelementhasbeenidentified,atwofoldconditionmustbemet.Themeasuremustbeboth“appropriatetoensuretheattainmentof theobjectivepursuedanddoesnotgobeyondwhat is necessary to attain that objective.”292 The Member State must show that themeasurecomplieswiththeseconditions.TheassessmentofcomplianceisforthenationalcourtafterdetailedguidancefromtheCourtofJustice.293

290CaseC‐55/94,ReinhardGebhardv.Consigliodell’OrdinedegliAvvocatieProcuratoridiMilano,1995E.C.R.I‐4165.

291SeeforexampleCase203/80,Casati,1981E.C.R.2595,para.27.

292CaseC‐441/04,A‐PunktSchmuckhandelsGmbHv.ClaudiaSchmidt,2006E.C.R.I‐2093,para.27.

293 Case C‐434/04, Criminal proceedings against Jan‐Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik Jan‐Erik AndersAhokainen,2006E.C.R.I‐9171,paras.31&38.


Withrespecttoissuesofjustificationonpublicinterest294grounds,inCriminalproceedingsagainstJan‐ErikAndersAhokainen,MatiLeppik,295Finlandhadtoshowthatthemeasurestaken had been effective to combat abuse arising from the consumption of spirits.296Wherethepublichealth297ground isused insupportof thenationalmeasure,adetailedassessmentoftheriskallegedbytheMemberStatewillberequired.298 InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands299theCourtaskedforadetailedassessmentof the risk tohealthonwhich theproofof thenutritionalneed in theDutchpopulation had been based.300 In Commission of the European Communities v. FederalRepublic of Germany,301 it was held that the national measure which automaticallyclassified vitamin preparations lawfully marketed in other Member States as medicinesproducts was not proportionate; a less restrictive approach would have been to fix athresholdvalueforeachgroupofvitamins.An example of an assessment of justification by the standard of the imperativerequirementisevidentinAlfaVitaVassilopoulosAE,formerlyTrofoSuper‐MarketsAE.302InAlfa,theGreekobjectiveofremovingconfusionbetweentraditionaland‘bakeoff’bakeryproductswasheldnottohavebeensatisfiedbyarequirementthat the laterproductbesubject to manufacturing and marketing requirements imposed on the baking oftraditional bread. Objectives such as public health and consumer protection could have

294PertainingtoArt.30(ex36)EC.

295CaseC‐434/04,2006E.C.R.I‐9171,para.22.

296Couldlessrestrictivemeanshavebeenusedtoensureasimilarresult?Id.,para.38.

297Art.30(ex36)EC.

298CaseC‐95/01,CriminalproceedingsagainstJohnGreenhamandLeonardAbel,2004E.C.R.I‐1333,paras.41&47.CaseC‐192/01,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofDenmark,2003E.C.R.I‐9693,para.47.

299CaseC‐41/02,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,2004E.C.R.I‐11375,para.41.

300CaseC‐41/02,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,2004E.C.R. I‐11375para.41.AsimilarrequestwasmadeforexampleinCaseC‐150/00,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.RepublicofAustria,2004E.C.R. I‐3887,para.84. InCaseC‐24/00,Commissionof theEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,2004E.C.R.I‐1277,Frenchmeasureswerehelddisproportionate.Itwasnotedthatnodetailedassessment as to the effects on public health resulting from the addition of vitamins and minerals toconfectionary and drinks, para. 62. In Case C‐270/02, Commission of the European Communities v. ItalianRepublic, 2004E.C.R. I‐1559, thenationalmeasurewashelddisproportionate, the ItalianGovernmenthadnotshownthattheimpositionofapriorauthorisationprocedureforthemarkingofsportsfoodhadwasinresponsetoahealthrisk,para.24.

301CaseC‐387/99,2004E.C.R.I‐3751,para.67.

302JoinedCasesC‐158/04,andC‐159/04,2006E.C.R..1‐8135.


beenachievableby lessrestrictivemeans,suchasproduct labeling.303 Inother instances,the issueofproportionalityhasnotbeen satisfiedwhere, for example, only a sixmonthimplementationperiodforadepositandreturnsystemhadbeenimposedonthemineralwaterproducers.304By contrast, in relation to the closureof theBrennermotorway, theauthoritieswerereasonablyentitledtoconsider the legitimateaimofdemonstration;anaimwhichcouldnothavebeenachievedbymeasureslessrestrictiveof intra‐Communitytrade.305Anationalmeasureprohibitingtheuseoffatotherthancocoabutterinchocolateproductswashelddisproportionate.“Theinclusioninthelabelofaneutralandobjectivestatement informing consumers of the presence in the product of vegetable fats otherthan cocoa butter would be sufficient to ensure that consumers are given correctinformation.”306II.Persons&servicesWithrespecttopersonsandservices ithasbeenheldthat“Thoserequirementsmustbeobjectively necessary in order to ensure compliance with professional rules and toguarantee the protection of the recipient of services and theymust not exceedwhat isnecessarytoattainthoseobjectives.”307The referring national court may be given a detailed indication of the form of thatenquiry.308ExamplesoftheapplicationoftheproportionalityprincipleincludePayrollDataServices (Italy) Srl and Others where Italian restrictions on data processing activitiesconcerning registration with certain professional organizations were held to be beyondwhat was necessary to attain the objective of the protection of workers.309 Further, in 303Id.,para.25.

304CaseC‐463/01,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2004E.C.R.I‐11705,para.79.Thesamequestionwithrespecttoproportionality,thatoftheimpositionofareasonabletransitionalperiod, arose in Case C‐309/02, Radlberger Getrankegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v. Land Baden‐Wurttemberg,2004E.C.R.I‐11763,para.81.

305 Case C‐112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v. Republik Osterreich, 2003E.C.R.I‐5659,para.93.

306CaseC‐12/00,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofSpain,2003E.C.R.I‐459,para.93.

307CaseC‐76/90,ManfredSagerv.Dennemeyer&Co.Ltd,1991E.C.R.1‐4221,para.15;CaseC‐67/98,QuestorediVeronav.DiegoZenatti,1999I‐7289,para.37.

308 Case C‐19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden‐Wurttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I‐1663, para. 42. In the context ofpostgraduate titles and the facilitation of access to the host profession, was the verification procedure solelyintended to verify that the award to themigrantwasmadeproperly?Was the authorisation procedure easilyaccessible,notforexampledependentuponpaymentofexcessivefees?Wastheverificationprocedurecarriedoutwithrespectforfundamentalrights?Wereanypenaltiesimposedproportionate?paras.37‐41.



Marks&Spencerplcv.DavidHalsey(HerMajesty’sInspectorofTaxes),310adifferentialtaxtreatment of company losses went beyond what was necessary to attain the economicobjective311 of theUnited Kingdommeasure.312 InManfred Sager v. Dennemeyer,313 thepossessionof aqualification suchaspatentagent “goesbeyondwhat isnecessary”314 inmakingthepossessionofaprofessionalqualification“quitespecificanddisproportionatetotheneedsoftherecipients.”315AFrenchmeasure,aprohibitionofmigrantcompaniesremuneratingsightaccounts,washelddisproportionate;316 itpreventedthosecompaniesfromraisingcapital.Likewise,Greeklegislationimposinga licenserequirement inrespectof tourist guideswas disproportionate to the held objective of a proper appreciation ofplacesofhistoricalinterest.317So,too,anItalianpracticerelatingtothenon‐recognitionofcertaindegreesawardedto Italiannationalswasheldnotproportionate.318Ontheotherhand, inJosefCorsten itwasheldproportionatetomaintainatradesregister inthehoststate, provided that this did not involve additional administrative expense for themigrant.319 In Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti, it was for the national court todetermine the issue of proportionality in relation to social policy objectives behind thereservation to certain bodies of the right to take bets on certain sporting events.320 InCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic,nationallegislationallowingonly France to check to abilities of migrant inseminators “even if it is appropriate forensuring theprotectionofanimalhealthandthehealthof theoperatorcarryingout theinsemination,goesbeyondwhatisnecessarytoattaintheobjectivepursued.”321

310CaseC‐446/03,2005E.C.R.I‐10837.

311Regardingcompetenceintaxmatterswithrespecttocompanies.Id.,para.36.


313C‐76/90,1991E.C.R.1‐4221,para.17.

314Id.,para.17.


316CaseC‐442/02,Caixa‐BankFrancev.MinisteredeL’Economie,desFinances,DeL’Industrie (BanqueFédéraledesBanquesPopulairesandOthers),2004E.C.R.I‐8961,para.21.

317CaseC‐198/89,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.HellenicRepublic,1991E.C.R.1‐727,para.25.

318CaseC‐153/02,ValentinaNeriv.EuropeanSchoolofEconomics(ESE)InsightWorldEducationSystemLtd,2003E.C.R.1‐13555,para.48.

319CaseC‐58/98,2000E.C.R.I‐7919,para.49.

320CaseC‐67/98,1999I‐7289,para.37.

321CaseC‐389/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FrenchRepublic2008E.C.R.,I‐5337,para.97.


III.Justification‐keyissues1.CircumventionofthenaturalorderThatdirectdiscriminationhasbeenjustifiedbyreferencetoTreatyprovisions,andindirectdiscrimination by reference to the concept of public/general interest, has traditionallyrepresentedthe ‘naturalorder’ inpersonsandservices jurisprudence.Therefocusof theenquiryuponrestriction/obstacletotherightoffreemovementratherthananassessmentoftheeffectofdiscriminationappearstohavebeeneffective,partially,atleasttodisplacethatnaturalorder.IthasbeeneffectivetorenderredundantconsiderationsoftheTreatygrounds for justification in instances wherein previously the classification of directlydiscriminatorymeasureswouldhavebeenused.TheimportationoftheconceptsrelatingtopublicandgeneralinteresthashandedtotheMemberStatetheoptionofawiderrangeofgroundsonwhichtojustifythenationalmeasureincircumstanceswhereinthemeasurehasbeenheldrestrictiveofthefreemovementright.Thepublic/generalgroundsrelatingtotheprotectionofworkers,322theprotectionofconsumers,323themaintenanceoforderinsociety,324andtotherecognitionofknowledgeinaprofessionalcontext,325forexample,standinstarkcontrasttothelimitedgroundsofjustificationprovidedbytheTreaty.326Thepotential expansivenessof such groundshasbeenhighlighted recently inCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofBelgium327inwhichtheattemptedjustificationofnational fiscal measures was set in the context of compromising the objectives of theTreaty.328 It is a timely reminder by theCourt that the relevant context surrounding thejustificationof the restriction is expansive rather than limited. It shouldbe rememberedthat in this instance, presumably the restriction in question would have formerly beendesignatedasdirectlydiscriminatory,andtheprocessof justification inturnrestrictedtothegroundsprovidedintheTreaty.329


323Seeforexampleinrelationtotheremunerationofsightaccountsineuros,theencouragementofmediumandlong term savings. Case C‐442/02, Caixa‐Bank France v.Ministere de L’Economie, des Finances, De L’Industrie(BanqueFédéraledesBanquesPopulairesandOthers),2004E.C.R.I‐8961,para.24.

324 Case C‐124/97, Markku Juhani Laara, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v.Kihlakunnansyyttaja(Jyvaskyla)andSuomenvaltio(FinnishState),1999E.C.R.I‐6067,para.33.

325CaseC‐55/94,ReinhardGebhardv.Consigliodell’OrdinedegliAvvocatieProcuratoridiMilano,1995E.C.R.I‐4165para.37.

326Art.30(ex36)EC.

327CaseC‐433/04,2006E.C.R.I‐10653.

328Id.,para.35.Themeasurewasnotjustified,paras.37&42.

329Art.55(ex66)EC.


The wider range of grounds330 now available to justify directly discriminatory measuresnow classified as restrictions/obstacles to the exercise of the freemovement rightwithrespect to persons and services have, it seems, effectively placed the operation ofproportionality intotheforefrontofpreservationoffreemovementrights.Havingplacedthat greater onus on the application of proportionality, it is arguably incumbent on theCourt toprovideguidelinesas to thede facto implementationof thatprinciple. It seemsthat,todate,it isanobligationgivenonlyadhocattentionbytheCourt.InJosefCorstenforexample,fullguidancewassuppliedtothenationalcourtastohowitshouldapplytheprinciple of proportionality.331 By contrast, however, in Questore di Verona v. DiegoZenatti332itwaslefttothenationalcourttodeterminetheapplicationofthatprinciple.Inthe new era of examination of the restriction/obstacle in freemovement jurisprudencewith respect to persons and services with the increased emphasis on the principle ofproportionality,itmaybearguedthatasfarasthepreservationofTreatyfreemovementrights is concerned, the apparent lack of guidance in judgments such as Zenatti333representsanabdicationofresponsibilityonthepartoftheCourt.2.Justifications–fusionatsource?a)PersonsandServicesThe focus on the obstacle/restriction on the freemovement right in relation to personsandserviceshasfurthereffect.Therepositioningoftheenquiry, i.e.thewithdrawalfromidentificationofdiscrimination,causesareconsiderationofthedistinctioninusebetweenTreaty grounds for justification and those attributable to the grounds of public/generalinterest.Hasthemaintenanceofthatdistinctionnowbecomeartificialandunnecessary?The arguments relating to the inappropriateness of having different grounds for thejustification of measures relating to persons and services dependent upon whether themeasure is classified as discriminatory or as a non‐discriminatory restriction334were putwith some force by Advocate General Jacobs in Rolf Dieter Danner.335 The AdvocateGeneral argued, “Once it is accepted that justifications other than those set out in the

330Public/generalinterest.

331CaseC‐58/98,2000E.C.R.I‐7919,paras.40–49.

332CaseC‐67/98,1999I‐7289,para.27.

333Id.,para.37.

334Inthecontextofthefreemovementofgoods,thesequestionswereregardedbyAdvocateGeneralJacobsas“preliminaryone[s].”CaseC‐379/98,PreussenelektraAGSchleswagAG,2001E.C.R.1‐2099,para.225.

335CaseC‐136/00,2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.40.


Treatymay be invoked, there seems no reason to apply one category of justification todiscriminatorymeasures and another category to non‐discriminatory restrictions.”336 HisrationalewasbasedonthepremisethatTreatyfreemovementprovisionswithrespecttothe provision of services “does not refer to discrimination but speaks generally ofrestrictions on freedom to provide services.”337 There appears to bemuchmerit in thisargument. The use of the language of restriction in recent jurisprudence is muchmoretransparentandreflectiveofTreatyobjectives.338Theanalysisrightlyplacestheonusonanassessmentof“whetherthegroundinvokedisalegitimateaimofgeneralinterest”339andaproperapplicationoftheprincipleofproportionality.340TheAdvocateGeneralunderpinsthis argument by proposing that grounds for justification are “no less legitimate and nolesspowerful”341becausetheydonotappearintheTreaty.Itseemsillogical,forexample,thatBelgiumcouldnotpreventthestorageanddumpingofhazardouswaste inWalloniawhich had originated from other Member States simply because there were no Treatygroundsavailableanduponwhichthenationalmeasurecouldhavebeenjustified.342Given that in practice it is difficult to apply the distinctions between direct and indirectdiscrimination and the non‐discriminatory measure, it would seem that the amalgamproposedbyAdvocateGeneralJacobsisapropitiousone.Itmaybethatmaintainingrigiddistinctions between direct and indirect justification are superficial. Arguably, theramifications of such distinctions are covered elsewhere within in the equation ofjustification. It ismuchmore likely, for example, that themore themeasure isde factotaintedwithdiscrimination,thelesslikelyitwillsatisfytheprincipleofproportionality.343b)GoodsSimilar, persuasivearguments for ananalogous treatmentof thegroundsof justificationexistwithrespecttojurisprudencerelatingtothefreemovementofgoods.Anindicationthat“theCourtisreconsideringitsearliercaselaw”infavorofthesamefusionofgrounds

336Id.,para.40.


338TheactivitiesoftheCommunity include“an internalmarketcharacterisedbytheabolitionof…obstaclestothenfreemovementofgoods,personsandservices”(emphasisadded).Art.3(c)EC.


340Id.

341Id.

342CaseC‐2/90,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomofBelgium,1992E.C.R.I‐4431,para.34.

343AsnotedbyAdvocateGeneralJacobs,CaseC‐136/00,RolfDieterDanner,2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.40.


forjustificationasthatwhichithasappliedtopersonsandserviceswasnotedbyAdvocateGeneralJacobsinPreussenelektraA.G.SchleswagA.G..344Asidesubsequentjurisprudenceconcerning theassessmentof issues relating topublichealth,345 it isnoticeablehoweverthatthe“reconsiderationofearliercaselaw”notedbytheAdvocateGeneralmayprovetobe a premature observation.346 In circumstances of justification other than recourse topublic health, the Court appears to have maintained the distinction between theapplication of Article 30 EC and the justifications whose grounds arise fromwithin freemovementjurisprudence.Thisplacesthejurisprudenceofthefreemovementofgoodsinauniquepositioninrelationtotheissueofjustificationbycomparisontothatofpersonsandservices.Thelanguageofrestrictioninthelatterhasfermentedafusionwithrespecttothetraditionalbasesofjustification;withrespecttotheformer,itappearstohavefailedto remove the traditional distinctions of the justification of the directly discriminatorymeasureandthatofthemeasurethathasappliedwithoutdistinction.Itisdisappointingtocontemplate, for example, that had the measure in Schmidberger been directlydiscriminatory,thelegitimateaimsofdemonstration,recognizedasafundamentalrightbytheCourt,347wouldthenhavehadtobeignoredasagroundforjustification.Not only is the development of a symbiosis,348which reflects that of freemovement ofpersons and services desirable with respect to the justification of measures relating togoods, it may in certain circumstances prove crucial. There may be instances whichhighlightthedesirabilityofpermittingthejustificationofdirectlydiscriminatorymeasuresonenvironmentalgrounds.349Forexample,inCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.Kingdom of Belgium,350 the grounds of imperative requirements were not available in

344CaseC‐379/98,2001E.C.R.1‐2099,paras.225‐228.InrespectofthejudgmentinCase389/96,Aher‐WaggonGmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1998 E.C.R. I‐4473. In that case, the German measure appeared todiscriminatedirectlyagainst the import; the issueof justificationwasby reference toconsiderationsof ‘publichealth’and‘environmentalprotection.’InjudgmenttheCourtdidnotconsidertheissueofdirectdiscrimination.

345CaseC‐41/02,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.KingdomoftheNetherlands,2004E.C.R.I‐11375,para.41;CaseC‐387/99,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.FederalRepublicofGermany,2004E.C.R.I‐3751,para.81.

346See,supra,note345,paras.225‐228.

347“ExpresslyrecognisedbytheECHR”.CaseC‐112/00,2003E.C.R.I‐5659,para.79.

348 This does not extend to the justification of the national provision relating to capital. Here there is amoreextensiverangeofexpressderogationsavailabletotheMemberStatethan incomparisontothoseavailable inrelationtomeasuresconcerningthefreemovementofgoods,personsandservices.

349NotedbyAdvocateGeneralJacobs.CaseC‐379/98,PreussenelektraAGSchleswagAG,2001E.C.R.1‐2099,AG,para.226.

350CaseC‐2/90,1992E.C.R.I‐4431.


circumstancesrelatingtoanabsoluteprohibitiononthedumpingof importedhazardouswaste.351F.TheSellingArrangementThe cases of Commission v. Italian Republic352 and Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson andJoakimRoos353currentlybeforetheCourthaveprovidedrenewedfocusontheboundariesthat lie between Article 28 EC and the “selling arrangement.” A judicial creation, the“sellingarrangement”relatestonon‐discriminatory354nationalrulesconcerning“thesaleof products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by thatState.”355Theimpositionofsuchrequirementsontheimport“isnotbynaturesuchastoprevent…accesstothemarketortoimpedeaccessanymorethanitimpedesaccessofthedomestic product.”356 In concept, the “selling arrangement” has remained undefinedwithinfreemovementofgoodsjurisprudence;onlya“non‐exhaustiveinventory”hasbeenprovided on a case by case basis.357 The invitation to the Court presented by bothCommissionv.Italy358andbyRoos359istoextendtheconceptofthesellingarrangementtorulesbeyondthoserelating to thesaleof theproduct, toembracearrangements for theuseofgoods.360

351TherigidityoftheTreatyjustificationswastherebyrespected,AdvocateGeneralJacobs.See,supra,note350,para.34.

352CaseC‐110/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(GrandChamber),10February2009.

353 Case C‐142/05, Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court of Justice of theEuropeanCommunities(SecondChamber)4June2009.

354“Solongasthoseprovisionsapplytoallrelevanttradersoperatingwithinthenationalterritoryandsolongastheyaffectinthesamemanner,inlawandinfact,themarketingofdomesticproductsandofthosefromotherMember States”. Joined cases C‐267/91 & C‐268/91, Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and DanielMithouard,19931E.C.R.6097,para.16.

355Id.,para.17.


357CaseC‐110/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(GrandChamber),10February2009,para.77(opinionofAGBot).

358Id.


360See,supra,note358,AdvocateGeneralBot,para.1.


In Commission v. Italy,361 there was a total prohibition of the use of trailers towed bymotorcycles, inRoos,362apartialprohibitionhadbeen imposedon theuseof jet skis inSweden.Intheformercase,AdvocateGeneralBotwasoftheopinionthattheItalianruleshouldfallwithintheapplicationofArticle28EC.363Bycontrast,AdvocateGeneralKokottin Roos, had argued that it “appears logical to extend the Court’s Keck case‐law toarrangementsforuse”oftheproduct.364AdvocateGeneralBot’sargumentthatnationalmeasuresconcerningtheuseofproductsshould be scrutinized by Article 28 EC was founded on the claim that “a distinctionbetweendifferentcategoriesofmeasuresisnotappropriate,”365andmay“beartificial.”366In demarcation, the division between “selling arrangement, “or “requirements to bemet,”367“maybeuncertain.”368Inreality,therestrictioninissuearguedAdvocateGeneralBot might have arisen from other factors, not attributable to that demarcation, forexampletheapplicationoftherulesinquestionortheirspecificeffectsontrade.369Astheexaminationofrestrictionstofreemovementis“basedonasinglecriterion,thatofaccessto themarket,”370AdvocateGeneralBotwasof theopinion that theadoptionof aKeckbasedcriteriainthecircumstancesofmeasuresconcerningtheuseofgoods,wouldcreatedifferences by comparisonwith the rules applicable to the other freedoms.371 It “wouldresultintheintroductionofanewcategoryofexemptionfromtheapplicationofArticle28EC.”372AccordingtoAdvocateGeneralBot,suchwouldbecontrarytotheobjectivesoftheTreaty;373thehandingtotheMemberStatesofanabilitytolegislatewouldunderminethe“usefulness”ofArticle28EC.374 361See,supra,note358.




365See,supra,note358,paras.79&81.








373Thecreationofasingleandintegratedmarket.See,supra,note358,para.91.



Bycontrast,therationalebehindtheargumentofAdvocateGeneralKokottthatrulesastouseof theproductbe treatedas sellingarrangementswas that such restrictionsarenotproduct related, and do “not therefore require any modifications to the personalwatercraft themselves.”375 The Swedish rules in Roos “also apply to all relevant tradersoperating within the national territory, since they do not discriminate according to theoriginoftheproductsinquestion.”376The respective opinions of the Advocates General delivered in Commission v. ItalianRepublic and Roos focus sharply on the opposing ends of the conceptual spectrum ofargumentsrelatingtotherightfulplaceofthesellingarrangementwithinCommunityfreemovementofgoodsjurisprudence.AdvocateGeneralKokott’sclaim“thatitappearslogicalto extend the Court‘s Keck case law to arrangements for use”377 has much merit. TheSwedishrulesappeartofallwithintheKeck378criteria,aswasimplicitlyacknowledgedbyAdvocateGeneralBot inhisopinion inCommissionv. Italy.379Thoughtechnicallycorrect,the position taken by Advocate General Kokott’s arguments, however, present somedifficulties. Reflecting perhaps some of the problems experienced by the Court tointerpretationofKeck,thejurisprudenceofthesellingarrangementhasbeen“Resolve[d]onlyonacase‐by‐casebasis.”380Asaresult,theKeckcriteriahasneitherclarifiedthescopeofArticle28ECnorfacilitateditsuse.381Againstthisbackground,theargumentpresentedby Advocate General Bot that Keck served to introduce an inappropriate distinctionbetween different categories of measures appears persuasive.382 It is a distinction thatwouldbeprolongedifrulesgoverningarrangementsfortheuseoftheproduct383weretobe classified as selling arrangements. It has been noted that other free movementjurisprudencebycomparisonisbasedonthesinglecriterionofaccesstothemarket.384

375See,supra,note354,AdvocateGeneralKokott,para.57.

376Id.,para.58.

377Opiniondelivered14December2006,Id.,para.55.




381JoinedCasesC‐158/04andC‐159/04,AlfaVitaVassilopoulosandCarrefour‐Marinopoulos,2006E.C.R.I‐8135.See,supra,note358,para.84.





Thesubjectionofnationalrulesgoverningarrangementsfortheuseoftheproducttothesame criterionwould represent amove in thedirectionof building a cohesive approachwithinthejurisprudencetotheattainmentoftherightoffreemovement,whateverTreatyrightisclaimed.This latteroptionclearlyexists inpartat least,aftertheinvitationtotheCourtfromAdvocateGeneralBottoimposethejudicialreviewoftheCourtinaccordancewith the “traditional analytical pattern”385 in the circumstances of product use. TheadvantageoftheapplicationofArticle28ECwouldbetwofold:it“makesitpossiblefortheCourt to monitor Member States” compliance with Treaty provisions” whilst allowing“necessaryroomformaneuvertodefendtheirlegitimateinterests.”386ItmaybethatnowisanopportunemomentfortheCourttore‐examinethenatureofthesellingarrangement,andtoestablishauniformityinitsapproachtotheattainmentofallTreatyfreemovementrights.Thatsuchreassessmentshouldoccurisnotonlypreferable,buthasbeenclearlycontemplatedbyAdvocateGeneralsMaduro387andmorerecentlyBotin Commission v. Italy,388 as well as a host of academic writers.389 Whether or not theopportunity is seized by the Court in Roos to fully reassess the role of the sellingarrangementwithinfreemovementofgoodsjurisprudenceatthisjuncturecanonlybethesubjectofconjecture.EventheAdvocateGeneralinCommissionv.Italywasoftheopinionthat “at the present time it is (not) appropriate to depart from”390 the jurisprudenceestablishedbyKeckandMithouard.391Itisnoted,however,thatinthejudgmentofCommissionv.Italy,theCourthaschosentofollow the line of reasoning proposed by the Opinion of Advocate General Bot. In thatjudgment, the Italian arrangements for the use of motorcycles towing a trailer were

385Seesupra,note358,para.93.


387JoinedCasesC‐158/04andC‐159/04,AlfaVitaVassilopoulosandCarrefour‐Marinopoulos,2006E.C.R.I‐8135,para.25.

388See,supra,note358,para85.AdeminimisapproachwasrecommendedbyAdvocateGeneral Jacobs inhisOpinioninCaseC‐412/93,Leclerc‐Siplec,1995E.C.R.I‐179,para.42.

389 See, in particular, Picod, F., “La nouvelle approche de la Cour de justice en matière d”entraves auxéchanges”,Vol 34 No2, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, p.169, (1998); Mattera, A., "Del'arrêtDassonvilleà l'arrêtKeck: l'obscure clarté d'une jurisprudence riche en principes novateurs et encontradictions",Revue du Marché Unique Européen, No 1, 1994, p. 117; Weatherill, S., “After Keck: somethoughts on how to clarify the clarification”,33 C.M.L. Rev, p. 885, (1996); Kovar, R., “Dassonville, Keck et lesautres: de la mesure avant toute chose”,Vol 42 No2, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, p.213, (2006);PoiaresMaduro,M.,“Keck:TheEnd?TheBeginningoftheEnd?OrjusttheEndoftheBeginning?”,I.J.E.L.Vol3No1,p.30,(1994).




broughtwithinArticle28ECscrutiny.392Whatissomewhatdisappointing,however,isthatalthoughanassessmentofthehindrancetotheaccesstotheItalianmarketfortrailerswaspivotal tothis judgmentandconsequentlytotheapplicabilityofArticle28EC, therewasno proper evaluation by the Court of the role of the selling arrangement within thejurisprudencerelatingtothefreemovementofgoods.Itisanevaluationthatmighthaveconceivably occurred on delivery of the judgment inÅklagaren v. PercyMickelsson andJoakimRoos.393However,whilstitwastobehopedthattheCourtwouldhaveseizedthatopportunity to make a full assessment of the place of the selling arrangement, thejudgmentwasdeliveredwithoutamentionoftheKeckruling.Itreaffirmedtheuseofthemarket access test, finding that rules restricting the use of personal watercraft were abarrier to market access. The effect of the use of the market access test has been torestrict Keck to situations which concern arrangements for sale and which will now beconstrued inthenarrowestpossiblesense. It isa judgment inwhichtheCourthastakenfor itself an ability to scrutinize an even wider category of measures for Article 28 ECcompatibility.G.ConclusionsThe jurisprudenceof recentyearswith respect to the freemovementof goods, persons,servicesandcapitalhasbeenonethathasbeencharacterizedbyaprocessofrevaluationandreassessmentby theCourtof Justice.Theprocedureof translatingTreatyrights intofreemovementrealityhasbeenrefocused;itnowinvolvesanassessmentoftherestrictionto the freemovement right. It isaprocess inwhich theshacklesof slavishadherence toTreaty strictures with respect to the justification have been removed, and an increasedreliance has been placed upon the operation of the principle of proportionality. Ittherefore appears that a uniformity of approach by the Court extending to all freemovementjurisprudencenowexists.TheconcentrationontheidentificationoftherestrictiontoTreatyfreemovementrightsisto be welcomed. It is a terminology representative of Treaty exhortations prohibitingrestrictions to free movement rights.394 It encompasses, but is broader than, thediscriminatorymeasure. No longer does discriminationper se have to be identified, norinstances of direct discrimination justified, by recourse to the grounds provided by theTreaty.

392Judgment10February2009,para.58.

393CaseC‐142/05,,2006.Åklagarenv.PercyMickelssonandJoakimRoos,JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(SecondChamber)4June2009.

394Withrespectforexampletorightsofestablishment,Art.43ECandservices,Art.49EC.


TherenowappearsanapparentuniformityintheapproachtakenbytheCourtwithinfreemovementjurisprudencetoattacknationalmeasuresrestrictiveoffreemovementrights.The identificationof the restriction, theavailabilityof groundsof justification (whicharethemselvesbroadinconcept),395areintegralelementspresentinganauraofuniformityinthecurrentapproach.AnysuchmovebytheCourtofJusticeistobewelcomedasamovetowards clarity and transparency. Nevertheless, any pretensions that a proceduraluniformity has been adopted by the Courtmay bemisguided.With respect to the freemovement of goods, for example, it is evident that despite the uniformity of language,there remains an adherence to the identification of discrimination.396 The old nuancesassociated with this division remain in the context justification. Arguably, this could beregarded as a sleight of hand; the language is modern, that of the examination of therestriction to the freemovementof the importedgood.Thereality,however,appears tobethemaintenanceofthestrictadherencetoTreatygroundsforjustificationininstanceswhereintherehasbeendefactodiscrimination.It is evident that the jurisprudence relating to the free movement of goods, persons,services and capital exhibits a common purpose; the removal at the national level ofrestrictions on the exercise of those free movement rights. Whether the unity of thatpurpose isservedbythe latentmaintenanceofthearbitrarydistinctionofdiscriminationwithinthefieldof thefreemovementofgoodswithrespect tothe issuesof justificationremain another matter. On the other hand, there is evidence that the latentacknowledgmentofthisdistinctionmaybecomesuperfluous.Thereisincreasinglyacross‐fertilizationofthegroundsofjustificationinfreemovementofgoodsjurisprudence.397There is at present a methodology in free movement jurisprudence separating theattainmentofthefreemovementrightinrelationtogoodsasseparateanddistinctfromthat relating to persons and services. Whether the jurisprudence pertinent to theimplementation of all Treaty freemovement rights is aligned in the future by the Courtmustremainamootpoint.Atpresent,thejurisprudenceofthefreemovementofgoodsoccupies a rather ad hoc position, with an eye to the future, a foot in the past. Theinherentrelianceonacademicdistinctionsrelatingtodiscrimination,insofarastheissueofjustification isconcerned,tosomeextentsitsuneasilywiththeadoptionoftheuniversalapproachofaddressingtherestrictionpresentedbythenationalmeasuretotheexerciseof the rightof freemovement. In thecauseofgreater transparencywith respect to freemovement of goods, it is a reliance that ought not to continue. So too within free

395TheTreatygroundsaretobestrictlyinterpreted.

396Sotoowithrespecttothejurisprudenceinmattersrelatedtotaxation.SeeBARNARD(note47),319.

397Note the observation of the observation of AdvocateGeneral Jacobs in Case C‐136/00,Rolf DieterDanner,2002E.C.R.I‐8147,para.40.


movement of goods jurisprudence, the cases of Commission v. Italian Republic398 andÅklagarenv.PercyMickelssonandJoakimRoos399presentatimelyremindertotheCourtthat the contradictions anduncertainties imposedby the introductionof the concept ofthesellingarrangementmustatsomestagebeadequatelydealtwith. It isarguablethatwhilsttherefusaltoextendtheconceptofthesellingarrangementtoyetanothercategoryofgoodsinCommissionv.Italy400istobewelcomed,itwasalsoanopportunitymissedbytheCourttoexplainfullyitsreasoning.TheargumentpresentedintheopinionofA.G.Botin Commission v. Italy that the “selling arrangement” effectively be brought within theumbrella of the traditional structure imposed by Article 28 EC has much merit.401 Theensuing introductionby the judgment in thatcaseof themarketaccess testsignifies theembracing of wider powers by the Court with respect to the scrutiny of the nationalmeasure.SuchintroductionisattheexpenseofarestrictiononthefutureapplicationofKeck. Itisarguablehowever,thatthesubsequentopportunitypresentedbyÅklagarenv.PercyMickelssonandJoakimRoos402bothtoclarifyandtore‐imposeuniformitywithinthejurisprudence relating to goods was avoided. In result, the tensions and contortionsinherentwithinthejurisprudencerelatingtothefreemovementofgoodsappeartobesettocontinue.SuchtensionsandcontortionsarguablyremaintobeaddressedbytheCourtatsomefuturetime.Inthecauseofreinforcingthemovetowardstransparency,certainty,and uniformity across all freemovement jurisprudence resulting from the focus on therestrictiontofreemovementpresentedbythenationalmeasure,arguablyitisapitythattheopportunityfortheestablishmentofclarityinthiscontextwasoverlookedbyCourtinRoos.403

398CaseC‐110/05,CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesv.ItalianRepublic,JudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(GrandChamber),10February2009.

399 Case C‐142/05. Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court of Justice of theEuropeanCommunities(SecondChamber)4June2009


401See,supra,note400.paras.91‐93.



article eu law

Documents