Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scope: Determining the Breadth of the Internal and External Frameworks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Services in EU Trade and Investment Agreements

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

  • 135 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter compares the scope of the internal and external frameworks of EU law as they relate to public services. Section 4.2 begins by mapping the scope of the external framework’s rules for cross-border trade in services and established and non-established foreign investment. Section 4.3 provides an overview of the internal framework’s equivalent rules: the freedoms of services, establishment and capital. Thereafter, the scope of either framework in relation to public services is compared in Sect. 4.4. A two-stage comparison is undertaken. First, the two frameworks are compared in terms of their material scope and structure. Second, the extent to which the scope of either framework covers public healthcare and education services is examined. Finally, the chapter’s conclusions are drawn together in Sect. 4.5.

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
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
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.

    Oxford English Dictionary 2011.

  2. 2.

    Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part, [2005] OJ L267/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Algeria’), Article 31.

  3. 3.

    Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, [2004] OJ L304/38 (hereinafter ‘EU-Egypt’), Article 29; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, [2000] OJ L70/2 (hereinafter ‘EU-Morocco’), Article 31; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, [2000] OJ L147/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Israel’), Article 29; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, [2002] OJ L129/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Jordan’), Article 37; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, [2006] OJ L143/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Lebanon’), Article 30; Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part [1998] OJ L97/2 (hereinafter ‘EU-Tunisia’), Article 31.

  4. 4.

    Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, [2002] OJ L352/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Chile’), Article 96(b); Decision No 2/2001 of the EU-Mexico Joint Council of 27 February 2001 implementing Articles 6, 9, 12(2)(b) and 50 of the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement [2001] OJ 70/7 (hereinafter ‘EU-Mexico’), Article 3(a); Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, [2014] OJ L161/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Ukraine’), Article 86(2); Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, [2012] OJ L346/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Central America’), Article 160(b); Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, [2014] OJ L261/4 (hereinafter ‘EU-Georgia’), Article 77(b).

  5. 5.

    EU-Chile, Article 95(1); EU-Mexico, Article 2(1).

  6. 6.

    EU-Chile, Article 96(c); EU-Mexico, Article 3(b).

  7. 7.

    EU-Ukraine, Article 86(15); EU-Central America, Article 169(2); EU-Georgia, Article 77(m).

  8. 8.

    EU-Ukraine, Article 86(13); EU-Central America, Article 169(2)(b); EU-Georgia, Article 77(k).

  9. 9.

    EU-Chile, Article 95(2); EU-Mexico, Article 2(2); and EU-Ukraine, Article 92; EU-Central America, Article 169(1); EU-Georgia, Article 83.

  10. 10.

    Economic partnership agreement between the West African States, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (hereinafter ‘EU-West Africa’), Article 44. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153867.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2020; Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Central Africa Party, of the other part, [2009] OJ L57/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Central Africa’), Article 54; Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part, [2012] OJ L111/2 (hereinafter ‘EU-ESA’), Article 38(2)(c); Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA States, of the other part, [2016] OJ L250/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-SADC’), Article 73(1).

  11. 11.

    Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, [2008] OJ L289/I/2 (hereinafter ‘EU-CARIFORUM’), Articles 75(1)–(2).

  12. 12.

    Ibid., Article 61(b).

  13. 13.

    Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, [2017] OJ L/11/23 (hereinafter ‘CETA’), Article 1.8; Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, [2012] OJ L354/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru’), Article 108; Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, [2011] OJ L127/6 (hereinafter ‘EU-Korea’), Article 7.2(b); Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership, [2018] OJ L 330/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Japan’), Article 8.2(o); Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter ‘EU-Vietnam’), Article 8.2(1)(k). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437. Accessed 13 February; Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter ‘EU-Singapore’), Article 8.2(f). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961. Accessed 13 February 2020.

  14. 14.

    EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 117; CETA, Article 9.1; EU-Korea, Article 7.4(a); EU-Japan, Article 8.2(d); EU-Vietnam, Article 8.2(1)(c); EU-Singapore, Article 8.4.

  15. 15.

    EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Articles 107(4) and 118; CETA, Article 9.2; EU-Korea, Articles 7.4(1) and (3)(b); EU-Japan, Articles 8.2(r) and 8.14(2); EU-Vietnam, Articles 8.2(1)(o) and 8.9; EU-Singapore, Articles 8.1(2)(b) and 8.3.

  16. 16.

    EU-Algeria, Article 32; EU-Jordan, Article 30; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part, [2009] OJ L107/2 (hereinafter ‘EU-Albania’), Article 50; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, [2015] OJ L164/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Bosnia’), Article 51; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part, [2016] OJ L78/1 (hereinafter ‘EU-Kosovo’), Article 51; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, [2004] OJ L84/13 (hereinafter ‘EU-Macedonia’), Article 48; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part, [2010] OJ L108/3 (hereinafter ‘EU-Montenegro’), Article 53; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, [2013] OJ L278/16 (hereinafter ‘EU-Serbia’), Article 53.

  17. 17.

    EU-Albania, Article 49(d)(i)–(ii); EU-Bosnia, Article 50(d)(i)–(ii); EU-Macedonia, Article 47(d)(i)–(ii); EU-Montenegro, Article 52(d)(i)–(ii); EU-Serbia, Article 52(d)(i)–(ii).

  18. 18.

    EU-Algeria, Article 36(e); EU-Jordan, Article 32(d); EU-Kosovo, Article 50(4).

  19. 19.

    EU-Algeria, Article 32(2); EU-Jordan, Article 30(3); EU-Albania, Article 49(a); EU-Bosnia, Article 50(a); EU-Kosovo, Article 50(1); EU-Macedonia, Article 47(a); EU-Montenegro, Article 52(a); EU-Serbia, Article 52(a).

  20. 20.

    EU-Algeria, Article 36(g); EU-Jordan, Article 32(f); EU-Albania Article 49(f); EU-Kosovo, Article 50(6); EU-Macedonia, Article 47(f); EU-Montenegro, Article 52(f); EU-Serbia, Article 52(f).

  21. 21.

    EU-Algeria, Article 34(1); EU-Jordan, Article 31(1); EU-Bosnia, Article 53; EU-Albania, Article 52; EU-Kosovo, Article 53; EU-Macedonia, Article 50(1); EU-Montenegro, Article 55(1); EU-Serbia, Article 55(1). For the EU-Algeria, this also applies to its modest services rules.

  22. 22.

    EU-Chile, Article 131(d)(i)–(ii); EU-Central America, Article 162(c)(i)–(ii).

  23. 23.

    EU-Georgia, Article 77(h)(i)–(ii); EU-Ukraine, Article 86(9).

  24. 24.

    A ‘legal person’ is defined as ‘a legal person constituted or otherwise organised under the law of the Community or its Member States or of [third country]’. Examples are found in EU-Chile, Article 131(b) and EU-Ukraine, Article 86(5). A ‘juridical person’ is defined as ‘a legal entity duly constituted or otherwise organised under applicable law’ with ‘its registered office, central administration, or principal place of business in the territory [of EU or third country]’. See EU-Central America, Article 160(d); EU-Georgia, Article 77(c) and (d).

  25. 25.

    EU-Central America, Article 162(d); EU-Ukraine, Article 86(10); EU-Georgia, Article 77(o).

  26. 26.

    EU-Chile, Article 131(d); EU-Ukraine, Article 86(11); EU-Central America, Article 162(b).

  27. 27.

    EU-Georgia, Article 77(i).

  28. 28.

    EU-Ukraine, Article 87; EU-Central America, Article 163; EU-Georgia, Article 78.

  29. 29.

    EU-Central Africa, Article 54, provides for the negotiation of establishment rules at a later date.

  30. 30.

    EU-CARIFORUM, Article 65(a).

  31. 31.

    Ibid., Article 65(b).

  32. 32.

    Ibid., Article 65(d).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., Article 66.

  34. 34.

    EU-Korea, Article 7.9(a); EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 110; EU-Singapore, Article 8.8(d).

  35. 35.

    EU-Korea, Article 7.9(c); EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 110; EU-Singapore, Article 8.8(b).

  36. 36.

    EU-Korea, Article 7.9(b); EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 110.

  37. 37.

    EU-Singapore, Article 8.8(c).

  38. 38.

    EU-Japan, Article 8.2(i); EU-Vietnam, Article 8.2(f).

  39. 39.

    EU-Japan, Article 8.2(f); EU-Vietnam, Article 8.2(d).

  40. 40.

    EU-Japan, Article 8.6(i).

  41. 41.

    EU-Vietnam, Article 8.2(h).

  42. 42.

    EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Articles 100 and 111; EU-Korea, Articles 7.9 and 7.10; EU-Japan, Articles 8.6(1)–(2); EU-Vietnam, Articles 8.3 and 8.10; EU-Singapore, Articles 8.8 and 8.9.

  43. 43.

    CETA, Article 8.1.

  44. 44.

    Outlined in CETA, Article 1.1, which provides ‘enterprise means an entity constituted or organised under applicable law, whether or not for profit, and whether privately or governmentally owned or controlled, including a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture or other association.’

  45. 45.

    Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part (hereinafter ‘EU-Singapore BIT’), Article 1.2(2). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961. Accessed 13 February 2020; Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part (hereinafter ‘EU-Vietnam BIT’), Article 1.2(i). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437. Accessed 13 February 2020.

  46. 46.

    CETA, Article 8.2(2).

  47. 47.

    The CJEU has recently made such an equation, see Opinion 2/15, Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, Opinion of 16 May 2017, para 227.

  48. 48.

    EU-Algeria, Article 39(1); EU-Egypt, Article 32(1); EU-Morocco, Article 34(1); EU-Tunisia, Article 34(1).

  49. 49.

    EU-Algeria, Article 39(2); EU-Egypt, Article 32(2); EU-Morocco, Article 34(2); EU-Tunisia, Article 34(2).

  50. 50.

    EU-Israel, Article 31; EU-Jordan, Article 49; EU-Lebanon, Article 31.

  51. 51.

    EU-Albania, Article 61(1); EU-Bosnia, Article 61(1); EU-Kosovo, 65(1); EU-Macedonia, Article 59(1); EU-Montenegro, Article 63(1); EU-Serbia, Article 63(1); EU-Georgia, Article 138(1); EU-Chile, Article 165; EU-Ukraine, Article 145(1); EU-Central America, 206; EU-CARIFORUM, Article 123(1). The exception here is the EU-Mexico agreement that contains no rules on capital movements.

  52. 52.

    EU-Albania, Articles 61(2) and 62; EU-Bosnia, Article 62; EU-Kosovo, Articles 65(6) and 66; EU-Macedonia, Articles 59(2) and 60; EU-Montenegro, Articles 63(4) and 64; EU-Serbia, Articles 63(4) and 64. Of the AAs with a strong trade component, only the EU-Ukraine, Article 147, and EU-Georgia, Article 140(2), make such statements.

  53. 53.

    EU-Central Africa, Article 56(2); EU-West Africa, Article 44(b); EU-ESA, Article 40; EU-SADC, Article 74. The EU-West-Africa agreement contains no provisions related to the free movement of capital.

  54. 54.

    EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 169; EU-Korea, Article 8.2(1).

  55. 55.

    EU-Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, Article 169, Footnote 56.

  56. 56.

    EU-Japan, Article 9.2;

  57. 57.

    CETA, Articles 8.2(1) and 8.1; EU-Singapore BIT, Articles 2.1(1) and 1.2(1); EU-Vietnam BIT, Articles 2.1(1) and 1.2(q).

  58. 58.

    CETA, Article 8.1; EU-Singapore BIT, Article 1.2(1); EU-Vietnam BIT, Article 1.2(h).

  59. 59.

    Bischoff and Wühler 2019, p. 23. As an example, Article 9.1 of the TPP which adopts the same style of definition.

  60. 60.

    ICSID, Salini Construttori S.P.A. and Italstrade S.P.A. v. Morocco, Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, para 52. For a discussion of the case, see Grabowski 2014, pp. 295–297. The relevant article of the ICSID Convention is Article 25(1) which reads: ‘[t]he jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State…’ Self-evidently, this does not provide a workable definition of ‘investment’.

  61. 61.

    ICSID, Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction of 14 November 2005, para 130; ICSID, Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, para 91; ICSID, Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. The Republic of Georgia, Case No. ARB/05/18, Decision on Jurisdiction of 6 July 2007, para 116; ICSID Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction of 27 September 2012, para 220.

  62. 62.

    As noted in Van Harten 2016, p. 153.

  63. 63.

    A trend that has been followed elsewhere. See García-Bolívar 2012.

  64. 64.

    See 2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, Article 1. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2020.

  65. 65.

    CETA, Article 8.1(f)(i); EU-Singapore BIT, Article 2.1(1)(h).

  66. 66.

    CETA represents a change in approach for Canada as it has previously adopted a closed-list approach in its Model BIT. See: Agreement between Canada and [Country] for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Article 1. https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/files/italaw8236.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2020. However, similar to the NAFTA and Canadian Model BIT, CETA closes the list by narrowing the range of scope of investments related to claims for money.

  67. 67.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder 2013, p. 6.

  68. 68.

    Legum 2005, p. 3.

  69. 69.

    Mayr 2017, p. 268.

  70. 70.

    CETA, Articles 8.2–3.

  71. 71.

    EU-Singapore BIT, Article 2.1(3).

  72. 72.

    EU-Singapore BIT, Article 2.1(2).

  73. 73.

    EU-Vietnam BIT, Article 2.1(2).

  74. 74.

    EU-Vietnam BIT, Article 2.1(3). A supplementary footnote defines a ‘subsidy’ as ‘[i]n the case of the EU Party a “subsidy” includes “state aid” as defined in Union law. For Viet Nam, “subsidy” includes investment incentives, and investment assistance such as production site assistance, human resources training and competitiveness strengthening activities, such as assistance for technology, research and development, legal aids, market information and promotion.’

  75. 75.

    EU-Vietnam BIT, Article 2.1(4).

  76. 76.

    Case C-281/06 Jundt, ECLI:EU:C:2007:590, Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 10 October 2007, para 12. See also Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2004:282, Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004, para 37.

  77. 77.

    Case C-52/79 Procureur du Roi v. Debauve, ECLI:EU:C:1980:83, Judgment of the Court of 18 March 1980, p. 87.

  78. 78.

    Article 57 TFEU. The Court has since gone beyond those listed and included a wider range of activities. See Barnard with Snell 2014, p. 414.

  79. 79.

    Case C-268/99 Jany, ECLI:EU:C:2001:616, Judgment of the Court of 20 November 2001 (hereinafter ‘Jany’), para 48.

  80. 80.

    Case C-286/82 Luisi and Carbone, ECLI:EU:C:1984:35, Judgment of the Court of 31 January 1984 (hereinafter ‘Luisi and Carbone’), para 10.

  81. 81.

    Case C-97/98 Jägerskiöld, ECLI:EU:C:1999:315, Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 17 June 1999, para 20.

  82. 82.

    Case C-155/73 Sacchi, ECLI:EU:C:1974:40, Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1974, paras 6–7.

  83. 83.

    Case C-393/92 Almelo, ECLI:EU:C:1994:171, Judgment of the Court of 27 April 1994, para 28. See also Case C-158/94 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1997:500, Judgment of the Court of 23 October 1997, para 17.

  84. 84.

    Case C-275/92 Schindler, ECLI:EU:C:1994:119, Judgment of the Court of 24 March 1994, para 22.

  85. 85.

    TFEU, Article 57.

  86. 86.

    Jany, above n. 79, para 71.

  87. 87.

    Case C-281/06 Jundt, ECLI:EU:C:2007:816, Judgment of the Court of 18 December 2007, para 32.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 33. See also Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404, Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001 (hereinafter ‘Smits and Peerbooms’), paras 50–52.

  89. 89.

    Cases C-263/86 Humbel, ECLI:EU:C:1988:451, Judgment of the Court of 27 September 1988 (hereinafter ‘Humbel’), para 17; C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 88, para 58; C-20/92 Hubbard, ECLI:EU:C:1993:280, Judgment of the Court of 1 July 1993, para 13; C-159/90 Grogan, ECLI:EU:C:1991:378, Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1991 (hereinafter ‘Grogan’), para 17; C-109/92 Wirth, ECLI:EU:C:1993:916, Judgment of the Court of 7 December 1993 (hereinafter ‘Wirth’), para 15; C-355/00 Freskot, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, Judgment of the Court of 22 May 2003, paras 54–55.

  90. 90.

    Case C-352/85 Bond van Adverteerders, ECLI:EU:C:1988:196, Judgment of the Court of 26 April 1988, para 16; Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 88, para 58.

  91. 91.

    Davies 2002, pp. 29–31; Hatzopoulos 2000, p. 59.

  92. 92.

    Cases C-264/01 AOK-Bundesverband, ECLI:EU:C:2003:304, Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 22 May 2003, para 27.

  93. 93.

    For further comparison of these separate approaches, see Odudu 2009, p. 225.

  94. 94.

    Hirt 2004, p. 1194.

  95. 95.

    Cases C-253/03 CLT-UFA, ECLI:EU:C:2006:129, Judgment of the Court of 23 February 2006, para 13; C-143/87 Stanton, ECLI:EU:C:1988:378, Judgment of the Court of 7 July 1988, para 12; C-81/87 Daily Mail, CLI:EU:C:1988:456, Judgment of the Court of 27 September 1988, para 12; C-208/00 Überseering, ECLI:EU:C:2002:632, Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002, para 94.

  96. 96.

    Barnard with Snell 2014, p. 406.

  97. 97.

    Case C-33/78 Somafer, ECLI:EU:C:1978:205, Judgment of the Court of 22 November 1978, para 12. This took place in the context of the Brussels Convention (now Regulation No. 44/2001). For discussion, see Condinanzi et al. 2008, p. 126.

  98. 98.

    Case C-196/04 Cadbury, ECLI:EU:C:2006:544, Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2006 (hereinafter ‘Cadbury’), para 54.

  99. 99.

    Case C-386/04 Stauffer, ECLI:EU:C:2006:568, Judgment of the Court of 14 September 2006, para 19. Notably, Advocate General Stix-Hackl reached the same conclusion. See Case C-386/04 Stauffer, ECLI:EU:C:2005:785, Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 15 December 2005 (hereinafter ‘Stauffer—AG Stix-Hackl’), paras 42–43.

  100. 100.

    As was the situation in Case C-451/05 ELISA, ECLI:EU:C:2007:594, Judgment of the Court of 11 October 2007, paras 65–67.

  101. 101.

    O’Leary 2011, p. 396.

  102. 102.

    Cases C-279/80 Webb, ECLI:EU:C:1981:314, Judgment of the Court of 17 December 1981, para 16; C-205/84 Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1986:463, Judgment of the Court of 4 December 1986, para 26; C-294/89 Commission v. France, ECLI:EU:C:1991:302, Judgment of the Court of 10 July 1991, para 2; C-55/94 Gebhard, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411, Judgment of the Court of 30 November 1995 (hereinafter ‘Gebhard’), para 39.

  103. 103.

    Case C-215/01 Schnitzer, ECLI:EU:C:2003:662, Judgment of the Court of 11 December 2003, para 28.

  104. 104.

    Gebhard, above n. 102, para 25. See also Cases C-196/87 Steymann, ECLI:EU:C:1988:475, Judgment of the Court of 5 October 1988, para 16; C-70/95 Sodemare, ECLI:EU:C:1997:301, Judgment of the Court of 17 June 1997 (hereinafter ‘Sodemare’), para 24.

  105. 105.

    Case C-131/01 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2003:96, Judgment of the Court of 13 February 2003, para 23. See also Case C-171/02 Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2004:270, Judgment of the Court of 29 April 2004, para 25.

  106. 106.

    Case C-230/14 Weltimmo, ECLI:EU:C:2015:639, Judgment of the Court of 1 October 2015, para 28.

  107. 107.

    This can be observed above in relation to the EU agreements with Japan, Singapore and Vietnam.

  108. 108.

    Gebhard, above n. 102, para 22.

  109. 109.

    Cases C-452/04 Fidium Finanz, ECLI:EU:C:2006:631, Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2006 (hereinafter ‘Fidium Finanz’), paras 31–32; C-198/89 Commission v. Greece, ECLI:EU:C:1991:79, Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1991, para 6; C-180/89 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1991:78, Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1991, para 6; C-154/89 Commission v. France, ECLI:EU:C:1991:76, Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1991, para 7.

  110. 110.

    Case C-61/08 Greece v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:340, Judgment of the Court of 24 May 2011, paras 77–78. See also Case C-42/92 Thijssen, ECLI:EU:C:1993:304, Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, paras 9 and 22.

  111. 111.

    Case C-2/74 Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68, Judgment of the Court of 21 June 1974, paras 43 and 45.

  112. 112.

    Case C-465/05 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2007:781, Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2007 (hereinafter ‘Commission v. Italy’), paras 37–38.

  113. 113.

    Case C-2/74 Reyners, ECLI:EU:C:1974:59, Opinion of Advocate General Mayras delivered on 28 May 1974, p. 664.

  114. 114.

    Chalmers et al. 2010, p. 482.

  115. 115.

    Case C-438/08 Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2009:651, Judgment of the Court of 22 October 2009, para 37.

  116. 116.

    Commission v. Italy, above n. 112, paras 37–38, para 38.

  117. 117.

    Case C-451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori, ECLI:EU:C:2006:208, Judgment of the Court of 30 March 2006, para 47.

  118. 118.

    Commission v. Italy, above n. 112, paras 37–38, para 8.

  119. 119.

    Communication from the European Communities 1990.

  120. 120.

    For an overview of negotiating history of the concept, see Leroux 2006, pp. 355–357.

  121. 121.

    Krajewski 2011, p. 459.

  122. 122.

    Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, [2006] OJ L376/36 (hereinafter ‘Services Directive’).

  123. 123.

    Ibid., Recital 6. For an overview of the Services Directive’s history, see Flower 2007.

  124. 124.

    Mustilli and Pelkmans 2013, p. 20.

  125. 125.

    Services Directive, above n. 122, Article 2(1).

  126. 126.

    Ibid., Article 4(1).

  127. 127.

    Ibid., Article 4(5).

  128. 128.

    Ibid., Articles 2(f) and 4(j). However, Recital 33 makes clear that the Services Directive will follow the CJEU’s case law in relation to education services. This is discussed in detail in Sect. 4.4.3.

  129. 129.

    Ibid.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., Article 9(1).

  131. 131.

    Ibid., Article 14.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., Article 4(7).

  133. 133.

    Ibid., Recital 9.

  134. 134.

    Klamert 2015, p. 177.

  135. 135.

    Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, [2011] OJ L88/45 (hereinafter ‘Patients’ Directive’).

  136. 136.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29th 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, [2004] OJ L158/77 (hereinafter ‘Citizens’ Rights Directive’).

  137. 137.

    Peeters 2012, pp. 31–32.

  138. 138.

    Patients’ Directive, above n. 135, Articles 1(2) and 3(a).

  139. 139.

    Sauter 2011, p. 14.

  140. 140.

    Patients’ Directive, above n. 135, Article 7(1).

  141. 141.

    Citizens’ Rights Directive, above n. 136, Article 5.

  142. 142.

    Ibid., Article 24.

  143. 143.

    Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service, [2004] OJ L375/12.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., Articles 6–9.

  145. 145.

    Although not the focus of this section, it should be noted that reference is also made to ‘current payments’ in Article 63(2). Previously, ‘capital’ and ‘current payments’ have been distinguished from one another. The latter ‘are transfers of foreign exchange which constitute the consideration within the context of an underlying transaction’, while the former ‘are financial operations essentially concerned with the investment of the funds in question rather than remuneration for a service’, see Luisi and Carbone, above n. 80, para 21.

  146. 146.

    Hindelang 2009, p. 46.

  147. 147.

    Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty [1988] OJ L178/5 (hereinafter ‘Third Capital Directive’). The Directive was preceded by the First and Second Capital Directives along with an additional directive: First Council Directive 60/921 (EEC) for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty, [1960] OJ 43; Second Council Directive 63/21 (EEC) adding to and amending the First Directive for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty [1962] OJ 5; Council Directive 72/156 (EEC) on regulating international capital flows and neutralizing their undesirable effects on domestic liquidity [1972] OJ L91/13. For context on the adoption of the Third Capital Directive, see Snell 2011, pp. 550–551.

  148. 148.

    Case C-163/94 Sanz de Lera, ECLI:EU:C:1995:451, Judgment of the Court of 14 December 1995, para 34.

  149. 149.

    Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer, ECLI:EU:C:1999:143, Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999, paras 20–21. This approach has since been confirmed in Cases C-98/01 Commission v. United Kingdom, ECLI:EU:C:2003:273, Judgment of the Court of 13 May 2003, para 39, and C-463/00 Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2003:272, Judgment of the Court of 13 May 2003, para 52.

  150. 150.

    Third Capital Directive, Annex I.

  151. 151.

    Flynn 2014, p. 452.

  152. 152.

    The distinction between the two is drawn in Cases C-282/04 Commission v. Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:2006:608, Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2006, para 19, and C-182/08 Glaxo Wellcome, ECLI:EU:C:2009:559, Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2009, para 40. See also: Cases C-367/98 Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2002:326, Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2002, para 38; C-174/04 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2005:350, Judgment of the Court of 2 June 2005, para 12.

  153. 153.

    Cited with approval in Case C-503/99 Commission v. Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2002:328, Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2002, para 38.

  154. 154.

    Dourado 2017, p. 193.

  155. 155.

    Cases C-439/97 Sandoz, ECLI:EU:C:1999:499, Judgment of the Court of 14 October 1999, para 18; C-101/05 Skatteverket v. A, ECLI:EU:C:2007:804, Judgment of the Court of 18 December 2007, para 31; C-560/13 Wagner-Raith, ECLI:EU:C:2015:347, Judgment of the Court of 21 May 2015, para 37.

  156. 156.

    Schön 2016, p. 232.

  157. 157.

    Stauffer—AG Stix-Hackl, above n. 99, para 35.

  158. 158.

    Dashwood et al. 2011, p. 663.

  159. 159.

    Cordewener et al. 2007, p. 372.

  160. 160.

    As has been acknowledged by the CJEU, see Case C-35/11 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, ECLI:EU:C:2012:707, Judgment of the Court of 13 November 2012, para 100.

  161. 161.

    Case C-515/99 Reisch and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2002:135, Judgment of the Court of 5 March 2002, para 29.

  162. 162.

    Case C-268/03 De Baeck, ECLI:EU:C:2004:342, Order of the Court of 8 June 2004, paras 25–26.

  163. 163.

    Cadbury, above n. 98, para 33; C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, ECLI:EU:C:2007:161, Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2007, para 34; C-415/06 Stahlwerk Ergste, ECLI:EU:C:2007:651, Order of the Court of 6 November 2007, para 15.

  164. 164.

    Case C-118/96 Safir v. Skattemyndigheten, ECLI:EU:C:1997:423, Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 23 September 1997, paras 15–19.

  165. 165.

    Fidium Finanz, above n. 109, paras 48–49. For discussion, see Flynn 2014, p. 455.

  166. 166.

    Cases C-279/00 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2002:89, Judgment of the Court of 7 February 2002, paras 37–38; C-531/06 Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:315, Judgment of the Court of 19 May 2009, para 30.

  167. 167.

    Sauter 2015, p. 86.

  168. 168.

    It has also been confirmed in the case law that member states retain the right to organise their social security systems, see: Case C-238/82 Duphar, ECLI:EU:C:1984:45, Judgment of the Court of 7 February 1984, para 16; Sodemare, above n. 104, para 27; Case C-158/96 Raymond Kohll, ECLI:EU:C:1998:171, Judgment of the Court of 28 April 1998 (hereinafter ‘Kohll’), para 17.

  169. 169.

    Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 88, para 46.

  170. 170.

    Luisi and Carbone, above n. 80, paras 10–16.

  171. 171.

    The same conclusion was reached in the landmark Irish abortion rights case of Grogan, above n. 89, paras 17–21.

  172. 172.

    The health insurance funds refused to reimburse the costs incurred as prior authorisation had not been granted. For a detailed overview of the facts, see Giesen 1999.

  173. 173.

    Kohll, above n. 168, paras 34–5, Case C-120/95 Decker, ECLI:EU:C:1998:167, Judgment of the Court of 28 April 1998, paras 35–36. Interestingly, the Advocate General, who delivered a joint opinion for both of the noted cases, observed that had this issue arisen under EU competition law the answer would have been negative. See Case C-120/95 Decker, ECLI:EU:C:1997:399, Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 16 September 1997, para 18.

  174. 174.

    Baquero Cruz 2011, p. 83.

  175. 175.

    Baeyens 1999, p. 375.

  176. 176.

    Hervey and McHale 2004, p. 45.

  177. 177.

    Kohll, above n. 168, para 29.

  178. 178.

    Ibid., para 20.

  179. 179.

    Case C-368/98 Vanbraekel, ECLI:EU:C:2001:400, Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001.

  180. 180.

    This was in spite of a number of governments arguing that hospital services do not constitute economic activity. See ibid., paras 39 and 43–46.

  181. 181.

    Smits and Peerbooms, above n. 88.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., paras 23–24.

  183. 183.

    Ibid., para 51.

  184. 184.

    Ibid., paras 55 and 58.

  185. 185.

    Cases C-368/98 Vanbraekel, ECLI:EU:C:2000:271, Opinion of Advocate General Saggio delivered on 18 May 2000 (hereinafter ‘Vanbraekel—AG Saggio’), para 26; C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms, ECLI:EU:C:2000:274, Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 18 May 2000, para 30.

  186. 186.

    This argument had been made Advocate General Saggio, see Vanbraekel—AG Saggio, above n. 185, para 21. In doing so, a cleavage was opened with competition law cases that found activities based on the principles of solidarity beyond do not constitute economic activity. See Case C-159/91 Poucet and Pistre, ECLI:EU:C:1993:63, Judgment of the Court of 17 February 1993, paras 18 and 19. For further discussion of how the separate lines of case law diverge, see Hatzopoulos 2002, pp. 689–70.

  187. 187.

    Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet, ECLI:EU:C:2003:270, Judgment of the Court of 13 May 2003, paras 44 and 58–60.

  188. 188.

    Case C-372/04 Watts, ECLI:EU:C:2006:325, Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2006.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., para 90.

  190. 190.

    Spaventa 2007, pp. 56–58.

  191. 191.

    Hancher and Sauter 2010, p. 127.

  192. 192.

    For the former, see Sodemare, above n. 104, para 24. For the latter, see Cases C-96/85 Commission v. France, ECLI:EU:C:1986:189, Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1986, para 8; C-351/90 Commission v. Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:1992:266, Judgment of the Court of 16 June 1992, para 11.

  193. 193.

    For a summary of the relevant jurisprudence, see European Commission 2012, para 26.

  194. 194.

    Case C-318/05 Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2007:495, Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2007 (hereinafter ‘Commission v. Germany’), para 68.

  195. 195.

    Luisi and Carbone, above n. 80, para 16.

  196. 196.

    Case C-293/83 Gravier, ECLI:EU:C:1985:15, Opinion of Advocate General Gordon Slynn delivered on 16 January 1985 (hereinafter ‘Gravier—AG Slynn’), p. 597.

  197. 197.

    The Court determined that application of the minerval constituted discrimination on the basis of nationality, see Case C-293/83 Gravier, ECLI:EU:C:1985:69, Judgment of the Court of 13 February 1985, para 26.

  198. 198.

    Gravier—AG Slynn, above n. 196, at 601–602.

  199. 199.

    Humbel, above n. 89, para 17–18.

  200. 200.

    Ibid., para 18.

  201. 201.

    Ibid., para 19.

  202. 202.

    As noted by van der Mei 2003, p. 390.

  203. 203.

    Davies 2002, p. 31.

  204. 204.

    Wirth, above n. 89, paras 15–19.

  205. 205.

    Ibid., para 17.

  206. 206.

    Ibid., para 15.

  207. 207.

    Case C-76/05 Schwarz, ECLI:EU:C:2007:492, Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2007.

  208. 208.

    Ibid., paras 47.

  209. 209.

    Commission v. Germany, above n. 194, para 73.

  210. 210.

    Nistor 2011, p. 45.

  211. 211.

    For example, case C-11/06 Morgan, ECLI:EU:C:2007:626, Judgment of the Court of 23 October 2007.

References

  • Baeyens A (1999) Free movement of goods and services in health care: a comment on the Court cases Decker and Kohll from a Belgian point of view. European Journal of Health Law 6:373–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2011) The Case Law of the European Court of Justice on the Mobility of Patients: An Assessment. In: van de Gronden JW, Szyszczak E, Neergaard U, Krajewski M (eds) Health Care and EU Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 79–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C, Snell J (2014) Free movement of legal persons and the provision of services. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 403–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi-Osterwalder N (2013) Commentary to the Draft Investment Chapter of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). International Institute for Sustainable Development Report. https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/commentary_investment_chapter_CETA.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2019

  • Bischoff JA, Wühler M (2019) The Notion of Investment. In: Mbengue M, Schacherer S (eds) Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 19–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G (2010) European Union Law: Cases and Materials, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Condinanzi M, Lang A, Nascimbene B (2008) Citizenship of the Union and Freedom of Movement of Persons. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordewener A, Kofler GW, Schindler CP (2007) Free Movement of Capital and Third Countries: Exploring the Outer Boundaries with Lasertec, A and B and Holböck. European Taxation 47:371–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Communication from the European Communities (1990) Proposal by the European Community Draft General Agreement on Trade in Services, 1990 MTN.GNS/W/105

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A, Dougan M, Rodger B, Spaventa E, Wyatt D (2011) Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law, 6th edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2002) Welfare as a Service. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourado AP (2017) The EU Free Movement of Capital and Third Countries: Recent Developments. Intertax 45:192–204

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Communication from the Commission on a European Union framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation, [2012] OJ C8/15

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower J (2007) Negotiating European Legislation: The Services Directive. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 9:217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn L (2014) Free movement of capital. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 447–476

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Bolívar (2012) Defining an ICSID Investment: Why Economic Development Should be the Core Element. In: Investment Treaty News. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/defining-an-icsid-investment-why-economic-development-should-be-the-core-element/. Accessed 15 November 2019.

  • Giesen R (1999) Case C-120/95, Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de maladie des employés privés, Judgment of 28 April 1998, [1998] ECR I-1831; Case C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v. Union des caisses de maladie, Judgment of 28 April 1998, [1998] ECR I-1935. Common Market Law Review 36:841–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski A (2014) The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini. Chicago Journal of International Law 15:287–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Sauter W (2010) One Step Beyond? From Sodemare to Docmorris: The EU’s freedom of establishment case law concerning healthcare. Common Market Law Review 47:117–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2000) Recent developments of the case law of the ECJ in the field of services. Common Market Law Review 37:43–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2002) Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients? Common Market Law Review 39:683–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hervey T, McHale J (2004) Health Law and the European Union. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S (2009) The free movement of capital and foreign direct investment: the scope of protection in EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirt HC (2004) Freedom of Establishment, International Company Law and the Comparison of European Company Law Systems after the ECJ’s Decision in Inspire Art Ltd. European Business Law Review 5:1189–1222

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamert M (2015) Services Liberalization in the EU and the WTO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2011) Patient mobility beyond Calais: health services under WTO law. In: van de Gronden JW, Szyszczak E, Neergaard U, Krajewski M (eds) Health Care and EU Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 453–478

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Legum B (2005) Defining Investment and Investor: Who Is Entitled to Claim? Symposium co-organised by ICSID, OECD and UNCTAD: Making the Most of International Investment Agreements: A Common Agenda. https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/36370461.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2019

  • Leroux E (2006) What is a “Service Supplied in the Exercise of Governmental Authority” Under Article I:3(b) and (c) of the General Agreement on Trade in Services? Journal of World Trade 40:345–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr S (2017) CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Their Relationship with EU Law. In: Griller S, Obwexer W, Vranes E (eds) Mega-Regional Trade Agreements: CETA, TTIP, and TiSA. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 246–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustilli F, Pelkmans J (2013) Access Barriers to Services Markets: Mapping, tracing, understanding and measuring. CEPS Special Report No.77

    Google Scholar 

  • Nistor L (2011) Public Services and the European Union: Healthcare, Health Insurance and Education Services. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary S (2011) The Free Movement of Persons and Services. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 499–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Odudu O (2009) Economic Activity as a Limit to Community Law. In: Barnard C, Odudu O (eds) The Outer Limits of European Union Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 225–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary (2011) Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeters M (2012) Free Movement of Patients: Directive 2011/24 on the Application of Patients’ Rights in Cross-Border Healthcare. European Journal of Health Law 19:29–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2011) Harmonisation in Healthcare: The EU Patients’ Rights Directive. TILEC Discussion Paper No 2011-030. Seminar on Social Protection and Social Inclusion in the EU: Interactions between Law and Policy 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter W (2015) Public services in EU law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön W (2016) Free Movement of Capital and Freedom of Establishment. European Business Organization Law Review 17:229–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell J (2011) Free Movement of Capital: Evolution as a Non-linear Process. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 547–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2007) Free movement of persons in the European Union: barriers to movement in their constitutional context. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Mei AP (2003) Free Movement of Persons within the European Community: Cross-Border Access to Public Benefits. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G (2016) The European Union’s Emerging Approach to ISDS: a Review of the Canada-Europe CETA, Europe-Singapore FTA, and European-Vietnam FTA. University of Bologna Law Review 1:138–165

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence, Italy

    Luigi F. Pedreschi

Authors
  1. Luigi F. Pedreschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pedreschi, L.F. (2020). Scope: Determining the Breadth of the Internal and External Frameworks. In: Public Services in EU Trade and Investment Agreements. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-383-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-383-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-382-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-383-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation