Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Definition of “Measures” and “Requirements”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU Services Directive: Law or Simply Policy?

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

  • 517 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the conceptual definitions of what constitutes a national “measure” within the meaning of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, as opposed to what constitutes a “requirement” established in Article 4(7) of the Services Directive. A measure or a requirement is defined by the bodies or persons enacting such measure or requirement and what type of action it represents. Consequently, firstly the scope of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU is analysed in relation to what bodies or persons have enacted measures or requirements (personal scope). This is commenced by a discussion of the principle of “direct effect” within the meaning of Union law. This is the case since what is known as vertical direct effect may only be invoked between state parties and private parties while horizontal direct effect may also be invoked between two private parties. Thus, what is meant by state parties is examined and what is meant by private parties. Based on this discussion, the personal scope of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU is contrasted with that of Article 4(7) of the Services Directive. Secondly, the material scope of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU is examined by means of a discussion of the types of actions taken by those parties who must fulfil the obligations of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU falling within the ambit of the freedom to provide services or establishment in another Member State. The material scope of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU is then contrasted with that which is expressed in Article 4(7) of the Services Directive. Thirdly, a discussion is provided of the fields of law exempted from the regulatory competence of the Union which, nevertheless, must fulfil the requirements of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the fields of law exempted from the Services Directive. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented in relation to the personal and material scope of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU in contrast with Article 4(7) of the Services Directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Initiated in Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expedite Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1.

  2. 2.

    See Sect. 4.4.

  3. 3.

    Case 6/74, Flaminio Costa v. E.NEL [1964] ECR 585, p. 593, see further regarding the supremacy of EU law in relation to national constitutional law, Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfur- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125 and regarding the requirement that national courts must not apply national measures contradicting EU rules, see Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finaze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629 and Case C-198/01, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) [2003] ECR I-8055.

  4. 4.

    In accordance with Article 267 TFEU.

  5. 5.

    Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1.

  6. 6.

    Prechal 2000, Section 5, pp. 1065–1067, concludes that the rationale behind the concept of direct effect is the doctrine of separation of powers and the fact that traditionally, the courts should be kept out of the area of foreign relations as it is sensitive as a matter of diplomacy and closely linked with national security. However, in the Union law context, a system of “law-giving” based on the rule of law exists which is non-existent in traditional treaty negotiations, and that is why the reasons for keeping the courts out cannot be upheld as it is in other international contexts. The Union judicial system must therefore be upheld both by the Court of Justice and the national courts as accomplished in infringement procedures where the Member State’s actions are controlled in relation to their obligations provided in the Treaty.

  7. 7.

    Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expedite Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1. See also Prechal 2000. The criteria has evolved through the case law and discussed in the literature, see inter alia, Reichel 2006 Section 2.2, Hettne 2008, Chapter 6; Van den Bogaert 2002 and Prechal 1998.

  8. 8.

    See the discussion in Chap. 12 in relation to the inability or decisional malaise during the 1970s.

  9. 9.

    Articles 34, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU all have direct effect as concluded by the Court of Justice in Case 74/76, Iannelli & Volpi SpA v. Ditta Paolo Meroni [1977] ECR 557; Case 167/73, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1974] ECR 359; Case 33/74, Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299, and Case 2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State [1974] ECR 631; and Case C-413/99, Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091.

  10. 10.

    See Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139.

  11. 11.

    In certain cases, negative effects may also occur for private persons who have relied on national law, which is not in conformity with Union law, see e.g., Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201.

  12. 12.

    See Case 152/84, M.H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] ECR 723.

  13. 13.

    See Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139.

  14. 14.

    Case C-265/95, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1997] ECR I-6959 and Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-5659.

  15. 15.

    Joined Cases 266 and 267/87, The Queen v. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others [1989] ECR 1295, see also Case C-292/92, Ruth Hünermund and others v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg [1993] ECR I-6787.

  16. 16.

    However, these are not the only reasons for the establishment of direct effect but give a simplified explanation as to why the Court has concluded that the provisions on the rights of free movement have direct effect.

  17. 17.

    Oliver et al. 2010, p. 56.

  18. 18.

    Ibid, p. 59.

  19. 19.

    However, see the Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 28 March 2012 in Case 171/11, Fra.bo SpA v. Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW)—Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein [2012] ECR 0000, where AG Trstenjak argues that Article 34 TFEU, in line with the other rights of free movement, is also to be applicable to measures enacted by private parties, however only in the context of a well-defined rule-making activity, limiting the impact of the effects of Union law on such measures. See further the discussion below as regards the scope of Article 56 TFEU in relation to private parties enacting measures, Sect. 8.2.4.

  20. 20.

    Joined Cases 177 and 178/82, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV [1984] ECR 1797, at paras 11–12. See also Case 311/85, ASBL Vereniging van Vlaamse Reisbureaus v. ASBL Sociale Dienst van de Plaatselijke en Gewestelijke Overheidsdiensten [1987] ECR 3801, at para 30, where the Court concluded that “[s]ince Articles 30 and 34 [Articles 34 and 35 TFEU] of the Treaty concern only public measures and not the conduct of undertakings”.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases, 177 and 178/82, Criminal proceedings against Jan van de Haar and Kaveka de Meern BV [1984] ECR 1797 and Case 65/86, Bayer AG and Maschinenfabrik Hennecke GmbH v. Heinz Süllhöfer [1988] ECR 5249.

  22. 22.

    See Case 41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] ECR 1337 at para 12, where the Court established that “[i]t would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to a directive by Article 189 [Article 267 TFEU] to exclude, in principle, the possibility that the obligation which it imposes may be invoked by those concerned. In particular, where the Community authorities have, by directive, imposed on Member States the obligation to pursue a particular course of conduct, the useful effect of such an act would be weakened if individual where prevented from relying on it before their national courts and if the latter were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of Community law”. See the discussion by Reichel 2006, p. 66.

  23. 23.

    Case 152/84, M.H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] ECR 723, at para 48, the Court provides that, “it must be emphasized that according to Article 189 of the EEC Treaty the binding nature of a directive, which constitutes the basis for the possibility of relying on the directive before a national court, exists only in relation to ‘each Member State to which it is addressed’. It follows that a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and that a provision of a directive may not be relied upon as such against such a person”.

  24. 24.

    Case 152/84, M.H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] ECR 723 and Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl [1994] ECR I-3325.

  25. 25.

    Case 148/78, Criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR 1629.

  26. 26.

    See Cases 14/83, Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 and Case C-106/89, Marleasing SA v. La Comercial Internacionale de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR I-4135.

  27. 27.

    Reliance damages maybe payable in respect of all infringements of Union law no matter whether the provision has direct effect or not. See Hettne and Otken Eriksson 2011, p. 210, see Joined Cases C-46/93 and 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others [1996] ECR I-1029.

  28. 28.

    Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, at para 5.

  30. 30.

    Case C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239.

  31. 31.

    This is also the case concerning custom duties and charges or equivalent effect, see Case C-16/94, Édouard Dubois & Fils SA and Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation SA [1995] ECR I-02421, where the Court said that Union law also applies to a private party responsible for collecting duties.

  32. 32.

    Case 249/81, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland [1982] ECR 4005.

  33. 33.

    See also Case 222/82, Apple and Pear Development Council v. K.J. Lewis Ltd and others [1983] ECR 4083 at para 17 where the Court provided: “As the Court held in its judgment of 24 November 1982 in Case 249/81 (Commission v. Ireland (1982) ECR 4005), a publicity campaign to promote the sale and purchase of domestic products may, in certain circumstances, fall within the prohibition contained in Article 30 of the Treaty, if the campaign is supported by the public authorities”.

  34. 34.

    Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany [2002] ECR I-9977, at paras 17–20.

  35. 35.

    Joined Cases 266 and 267/87, The Queen v. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others [1989] ECR 1295, see for the same reasoning in Case C-292/92, Ruth Hünermund and others v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg [1993] ECR I-6787.

  36. 36.

    Joined Cases 266 and 267/87, The Queen v. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others [1989] ECR 1295, at para 14.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    Answer by the Commission to written question 862/83 [1983] OJ C315/15, see Oliver et al. 2010, p. 58.

  39. 39.

    Case 15/74, Centrafarm BV et Adriaan de Peijper v. Sterling Drug Inc. [1974] ECR 1147, at para 15, where the Court established that: “the exercise, by a patentee, of the right which he enjoys under the legislation of a Member State to prohibit the sale, in that state, of a product protected by the patent which has been marketed in another Member State by the patentee or with his consent is incompatible with the rules of the EEC Treaty concerning the free movement of goods within the Common Market”.

  40. 40.

    Case 58/80, Dansk Supermarked A/S v. A/S Imerco [1981] ECR 181.

  41. 41.

    Ibid, at para 17.

  42. 42.

    See discussion in Oliver et al. 2010, p. 69. The same reasoning is given by Snell 2002, pp. 213–218.

  43. 43.

    Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-5659.

  44. 44.

    Case C-265/95, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1997] ECR I-6959.

  45. 45.

    Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-5659, at para 58.

  46. 46.

    Case C-16/94, Édouard Dubios & Fils SA and Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation SA [1995] ECR I-2421.

  47. 47.

    Ibid, at para 13.

  48. 48.

    Ibid, at para 14.

  49. 49.

    Case C-159/00, Sapod Audic v. Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, at para 74.

  51. 51.

    Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201.

  52. 52.

    Case C-159/00, Sapod Audic v. Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031, at para 74.

  53. 53.

    De Vries 2006, p. 35.

  54. 54.

    Case C-188/89, A. Foster and others v. British Gas plc. [1990] ECR I-3313.

  55. 55.

    Case C-188/89, A. Foster and others v. British Gas plc. [1990] ECR I-3313, at para 20.

  56. 56.

    Case C-157/02, Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH v. Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs- AG (Asfinag) [2004] ECR I-1477.

  57. 57.

    Ibid, at para 29.

  58. 58.

    Case C-16/94, Édouard Dubios & Fils SA and Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation SA [1995] ECR I-2421.

  59. 59.

    Order of the Court in Case C-297/03, Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach v. Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund [2005] ECR I-4305.

  60. 60.

    Ibid, at para 30.

  61. 61.

    Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201.

  62. 62.

    Case 58/80, Dansk Supermarked A/S v. A/S Imerco [1981] ECR 181 and Case C-159/00, Sapod Audic v. Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031.

  63. 63.

    Case C-443/98, Unilever Italia SpA v. Central Food SpA [2000] ECR I-7535.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, at para 35.

  65. 65.

    Ibid, at para 44.

  66. 66.

    Case C-6/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic [1991] ECR I-5357.

  67. 67.

    Ibid, at para 35.

  68. 68.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others [1996] ECR I-1029.

  69. 69.

    Ibid, at paras 20 and 22.

  70. 70.

    Ibid, at para 29.

  71. 71.

    Ibid, at para 51.

  72. 72.

    Davis 2006, p. 69.

  73. 73.

    Case C-424/97, Salomone Haim v. Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein [2000] ECR I-5123.

  74. 74.

    Case C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV [2008] ECR I-5939, see also Hettne 2009 and Prechal and de Vries 2009. See also Bernitz 2012, p. 38. Bernitz concludes that the Swedish Labour Court extended the liability for damages also to private parties, as was the case in the aftermath of Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, in relation to the Labour Union, Byggnads.

  75. 75.

    Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v. Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455.

  76. 76.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405.

  77. 77.

    Ibid, at para 17.

  78. 78.

    Ibid, at para 19.

  79. 79.

    Case 13/76, Gaetano Donà v. Mario Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, at para 17.

  80. 80.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

  81. 81.

    Case C-176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) [2000] ECR I-2681, at para 35.

  82. 82.

    Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Christelle Deliège v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo (C-51/96) and François Pacquée (C-191/97) [2000] ECR 2000 p. I-2549.

  83. 83.

    Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139.

  84. 84.

    Case C-350/96, Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH v. Landeshauptmann von Wien [1998] ECR I-2521.

  85. 85.

    Ibid, at paras 24–25, referring to the Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 84–86.

  86. 86.

    Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v. Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455.

  87. 87.

    Ibid, at para 40.

  88. 88.

    Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139, at para 32.

  89. 89.

    Ibid, at para 34, referring to Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v. Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455, para 31.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, at para 35.

  91. 91.

    Ibid, at para 36. See Van den Bogaert 2002, pp. 128–129.

  92. 92.

    Case C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV [2008] ECR I-5939, at para 43.

  93. 93.

    Van den Bogaert 2002, p. 132.

  94. 94.

    Case C-309/99, J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap [2002] ECR I-1577.

  95. 95.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405.

  96. 96.

    Case 13/76, Gaetano Donà v. Mario Mantero [1976] ECR 1333.

  97. 97.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

  98. 98.

    Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139.

  99. 99.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405, at para 120—reference made to Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, paras 17, 23 and 24; Case 13/76 Donà [1976] ECR 1333, paras 17 and 18; Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 83 and 84, and Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, para 32). See also Case C-519/04 P, David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission of the European Communities appeal [2006] ECR I-6991.

  100. 100.

    Case C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV [2008] ECR I-5939.

  101. 101.

    Case C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV [2008] ECR I-5939, at para 43.

  102. 102.

    Ibid, at para 44.

  103. 103.

    Ibid, at para 45.

  104. 104.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405, at para 17.

  105. 105.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779.

  106. 106.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.

  107. 107.

    Ibid, at para 98 and Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779, at para 57.

  108. 108.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405.

  109. 109.

    Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

  110. 110.

    Case C-309/99, J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap [2002] ECR I-1577.

  111. 111.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97, Christelle Deliège v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo (C-51/96) and François Pacquée (C-191/97) [2000] ECR 2000 p. I-2549, at para 47.

  112. 112.

    Case C-281/98, Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-4139, at para 32.

  113. 113.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, at para 98.

  114. 114.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779, at para 58.

  115. 115.

    Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v. Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [1976] ECR 455, at paras 31 and 39.

  116. 116.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779, at para 58.

  117. 117.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, at para 98.

  118. 118.

    Ibid, at para 33.

  119. 119.

    Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v. QC Leisure and Others (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) [2011] ECR I-0000.

  120. 120.

    Ibid, at para 88.

  121. 121.

    For such discussion, see Jarass 2002, pp. 152–153.

  122. 122.

    Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.2.

  123. 123.

    Recital 10 of the Services Directive.

  124. 124.

    Ibid, Recitals 10 and 73.

  125. 125.

    Ibid, Recital 47.

  126. 126.

    Ibid, Recitals 69 and 76.

  127. 127.

    Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.1, referring to: “Judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave, Case 36/74, paras 17, 23 and 24; Judgment of 14 July 1976, Donà, Case 13/76, paras 17 and 18; Judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman, Case C-415/93, paras 83 and 84; Judgment of 19 February 2002, Wouters, C-309/99, para 120”.

  128. 128.

    Case C-76/90, Manfred Säger v. Dennemeyer & Co. Ltd. [1991] ECR I-4221, at para 12.

  129. 129.

    Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165.

  130. 130.

    Ibid, at para 37.

  131. 131.

    Oxford Dictionary of English 2005.

  132. 132.

    Case 2/73, Riseria Luigi Geddo v. Ente Nazionale Risi [1973] ECR 865, at para 7.

  133. 133.

    Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

  134. 134.

    Ibid, at para 5.

  135. 135.

    Commission Directive 70/50/EEC based on the provisions of Article 33(7), on the abolition of measures which have an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports and are not covered by other provisions adopted in pursuance of the EEC Treaty [1970] OJ Eng. Sp. Ed.; Series I Chap (I)/17.

  136. 136.

    Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

  137. 137.

    Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273.

  138. 138.

    Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and C-324/94, Criminal proceedings against Jacques Pistre (C-321/94), Michèle Barthes (C-322/94), Yves Milhau (C-323/94) and Didier Oberti (C-324/94) [1997] ECR I-2343, and C-184/96, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1998] ECR I-6197, at para 17.

  139. 139.

    Case C-67/97, Criminal proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme [1998] ECR I-8033.

  140. 140.

    Oliver 1999b, 790–793 and Jarras 2004, p. 150.

  141. 141.

    It is considered that any encumbrance is contrary to Article 34 TFEU, see Case 2/73, Riseria Luigi Geddo v. Ente Nazionale Risi [1973] ECR 865, at para 7.

  142. 142.

    Case 249/81, Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland [1982] ECR 4005.

  143. 143.

    Ibid, at paras 27–28.

  144. 144.

    Case 21/84, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1985] ECR 1355, at para 11. It should though be mentioned that the Court also stated in para 13 that “It must however be noted that for an administrative practice to constitute a measure prohibited under Article 30 that practice must show a certain degree of consistency and generality. That generality must be assessed differently according to whether the market concerned is one on which there are numerous traders or whether it is a market, such as that in postal franking machines, on which only a few undertakings are active. In the latter case, a national administration’s treatment of a single undertaking may constitute a measure incompatible with Article 30.”

  145. 145.

    Case C-470/03, A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl v. Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen [2007] ECR I-2749.

  146. 146.

    Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09, Josep Peñarroja Fa [2011] ECR 0000.

  147. 147.

    Ibid, at para 53.

  148. 148.

    Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-5659.

  149. 149.

    Case C-265/95, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1997] ECR I-6959.

  150. 150.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.

  151. 151.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779.

  152. 152.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405, at para 17.

  153. 153.

    Vand den Bogaert 2002, p. 132.

  154. 154.

    Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.2, p. 14.

  155. 155.

    Strangely only ‘providers’ are referred to in the Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.2, whereas it would be rational that this would also apply to service ‘receivers’, which in the author’s opinion it most certainly does. It may simply have been overlooked in the Handbook.

  156. 156.

    Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.2, p. 14.

  157. 157.

    Ibid, Section 11.1, p. 56.

  158. 158.

    Article 39(5) of the Services Directive. See in contrast, Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC (Text with EEA relevance) [2008] OJ L 218/21, in accordance with which the national official authorities are to follow a specified procedure in taking national decisions which might have effect on the free movement of goods.

  159. 159.

    See Articles 65, 67, 110-113, 153, 173, Titles IX and X, Chapters 4 and 5 TFEU, etc.

  160. 160.

    In Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, it is stated in para 87 that: “[E]ven though, in the areas in which the Community does not have competence, the Member States remain, in principle, free to lay down the conditions for the existence and exercise of the rights at issue, they must nevertheless exercise that competence consistently with Community law (see, by analogy, as regards social security, Case C-120/95 Decker [1998] ECR I-1831, paras 22 and 23, and Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, paras 18 and 19; as regards direct taxation, Case C-334/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-2229, para 21, and Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, para 29).”

  161. 161.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779.

  162. 162.

    Ibid, at para 40.

  163. 163.

    Articles 151-161 TFEU.

  164. 164.

    Article 153(4) TFEU.

  165. 165.

    Case C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v. Union des caisses de maladie [1998] ECR I-1931.

  166. 166.

    Ibid, at para 21.

  167. 167.

    Case C-3/95, Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker [1996] ECR I-6511.

  168. 168.

    Ibid, at para 24.

  169. 169.

    Ibid, at paras 28 and 43.

  170. 170.

    Articles 110–113 TFEU, see for a comprehensive discussion regarding EU law and taxation in Ståhl and Persson Österman 2006.

  171. 171.

    As discussed in the Introduction and in Sect. 5.4.

  172. 172.

    Article 113 TFEU.

  173. 173.

    For further analysis of taxation and free movement see among others, Terra and Wattel 2008.

  174. 174.

    Case C-390/96, Lease Plan Luxembourg SA v. Belgian State [1998] ECR I-2553. The national rule in question in Lease Plan gave taxable persons not established in the territory of the Member State in question, upon the expiry of the statutory time-limit for reimbursement, interest at a rate lower than that of the interest paid to those established in that State. The Court concluded that such different treatment constituted a national measure prohibited by Article 56 TFEU.

  175. 175.

    Case C-279/93, Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225.

  176. 176.

    Case C-118/96, Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län [1998] ECR I-1897. In this case the Court established that “[i]t must be observed first of all that, although, as Community law stands at present, direct taxation does not as such fall within the purview of the Community, the powers retained by the Member States must nevertheless be exercised consistently with Community law”, para 21.

  177. 177.

    Case C-204/90, Hanns-Martin Bachmann v. Belgian State [1992] ECR I-249. In this case the Court stated that “[p]rovisions requiring an insurer to be established in a Member State as a condition of the eligibility of insured persons to benefit from certain tax deductions in that State operate to deter those seeking insurance from approaching insurers established in another Member State, and thus constitute a restriction of the latter's freedom to provide services”, para 31.

  178. 178.

    Case C-134/07, Viacom Outdoor Srl v. Giotto Immobilier SARL [2005] ECR I-1167. A municipal tax on outdoor advertising was discussed in where the Court provided that such a measure, if restrictive on the freedom to provide services could also constitute a prohibited measure. However, the measure did not sufficiently affect the free movement of services and consequently it was accepted, as “the levying of such tax is not in any view liable to prohibit, impede or otherwise make less attractive the provision of advertising services to be carried out in the territory of the municipalities concerned”, para 38.

  179. 179.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, at para 87.

  180. 180.

    Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609.

  181. 181.

    Ibid, at para 37, stating “It is not indispensable in that respect for the restrictive measure issued by the authorities of a Member State to correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest in question is to be protected. Although, in para 60 of Schindler, the Court referred to moral, religious or cultural considerations which lead all Member States to make the organisation of lotteries and other games with money subject to restrictions, it was not its intention, by mentioning that common conception, to formulate a general criterion for assessing the proportionality of any national measure which restricts the exercise of an economic activity.” In para 38 the Court continues: “On the contrary, as is apparent from well-established case-law subsequent to Schindler, the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions adopted are not excluded merely because one Member State has chosen a system of protection different from that adopted by another State (see, to that effect, Läärä, para 36; Zenatti, para 34; Case C-6/01 Anomar and Others [2003] ECR I-0000, para 80)”.

  182. 182.

    Case 305/87, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR 1461.

  183. 183.

    Ibid, at para 27.

  184. 184.

    Commission Communication on the strategy for Europe's internal market COM(1999) 464 final.

  185. 185.

    Case C-279/92, Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453.

  186. 186.

    Case 143/87, Christopher Stanton and SA belge d'assurances "L'Étoile 1905" v. Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) [1988] ECR 3877, at para 40, and regarding free movement of establishments.

  187. 187.

    Case 63/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic [1988] ECR 29.

  188. 188.

    Case C-264/96, Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v. Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) [1998] ECR I-4695, at para 19, Case C-307/97, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v. Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt [1999] ECR I-6161, at para 43 and Case C-391/97, Frans Gschwind v. Finanzamt Aachen-Außenstadt [1999] ECR I-5451, at para 20.

  189. 189.

    Case 305/87, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR 1461. See further for the same discussion by Jarras 2004, pp. 149–150.

  190. 190.

    Case C-446/03, Marks & Spencer plc v. David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) [2005] ECR I-10837.

  191. 191.

    Ibid, at para 29 referring to Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98, Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG and Hoechst (UK) Ltd (C-410/98) v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney General [2001] ECR I-1727, para 37 and the caselaw cited.

  192. 192.

    Joined Cases 6/69 and 11/69, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic [1969] ECR 523.

  193. 193.

    Ibid, see para 20.

  194. 194.

    Ibid, see para 17.

  195. 195.

    Case 95/81, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic [1982] ECR 2187, at para 15.

  196. 196.

    Ibid, at para 17 and further confirmed in Case 57/86, Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the European Communities [1988] ECR 2855, at para 9 and Case 127/87, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic [1988] ECR 3333, at para 7.

  197. 197.

    Case C-246/89, Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1991] ECR I-4585.

  198. 198.

    Ibid, at para 11, referring to Case C-221/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1991] ECR I-3905, at para 13, and Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 of 19 January 1976 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry [1976] OJ L 20, p. 19.

  199. 199.

    Case C-246/89, Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1991] ECR I-4585, at para 12.

  200. 200.

    Ibid, at para 34.

  201. 201.

    Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04, Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Placanica (C-338/04), Christian Palazzese (C-359/04) and Angelo Sorricchio (C-360/04) [2007] ECR I-1891, at paras 68–70. See also Barnard 2008, pp. 344–345.

  202. 202.

    See Barnard 2008, p. 345, and her reference made to Commissioner McCreevy (SPEEC/06/687, European Parliament Plenary Session, Strasbourg, 15 Nov. 2006).

  203. 203.

    Recital 13 of the Services Directive.

  204. 204.

    Ibid, Recital 14.

  205. 205.

    See Recitals 14, 15, 88, Articles 1(3), (4) and (7), 12(3), 24(2), 30(1), 31(1), and 37(1) of the Services Directive.

  206. 206.

    Parties made responsible by the State to regulate specific issues and those parties under the control of the State.

  207. 207.

    Case C-470/03, A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl v. Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen [2007] ECR I-2749.

  208. 208.

    See, inter alia, Case 13/76, Gaetano Donà v. Mario Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, at para 17; Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921; Case C-176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) [2000] ECR I-2681, at para 35; Case C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV [2008] ECR I-5939, at para 43.

  209. 209.

    Case C-341/05, Laval un Parteri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767.

  210. 210.

    Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779.

  211. 211.

    Case 36/74, B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v. Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1405, at para 17.

  212. 212.

    Ibid, at para 19.

  213. 213.

    Klamert 2010, pp. 114–115.

  214. 214.

    Barnard 2008, p. 336, by making reference to the broad definition of restrictions provided in Dassonville and the delimitation sought through the ruling in Keck defining certain selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU, Deliège concluding the same in relation to rules merely structuring the market of services as well as Graf, where the effect of the measures was too remote.

  215. 215.

    Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Christelle Deliège v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo (C-51/96) and François Pacquée (C-191/97) [2000] ECR I-2549, at para 43.

  216. 216.

    Commission Handbook on Implementation of the Services Directive (2007), Section 2.3.2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for the EU Internal Market, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden

    Maria Wiberg

Authors
  1. Maria Wiberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Wiberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wiberg, M. (2014). Definition of “Measures” and “Requirements”. In: The EU Services Directive: Law or Simply Policy?. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-023-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation