7296658
Description
Flashcards by Spencer Bienvenue, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Spencer Bienvenue
over 7 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Jany v Staatssecretaris van Justite (Case C-268/99) [2001] ECR I-8615 Jany | definition of self employed: -outside any relationship of subordination concerning the choice of that activity, working conditions and conditions of remuneration -under that person's own responsibility -in return for renumeration paid to that person directly and in full. |
| Society for the Protection of Unborn Children v Grogan (Case 159/90) [1991] ECR I-4685 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children | held that the medical termination of a pregnancy performed for remuneration in accordance with the law of the MS in which it is carried out, constitutes a service. Case: Ireland, abortions are prohibited but he constitution, wanted to prevent officers of student associations from distributing information to students concerning the location of UK clinics. Court adopted similar stance as in Jany, declining to engage in a moral assessment and simply held the thing (abortion/prostitution) to be a service. |
| Deliege v Ligue Francophone de Jude et Disciplines Associees ASBL (Cases C-51/96) and C-191/97) [2000] ECR I-2549 Delige | Belgian national, judo champion, national league prevented her from taking part international competitions and olympics. Court rejected that art 56 could not apply because she was an amateur. Held that sporting activities may fall within the scope of art 56 even if some of those services are not paid for by those for whom they are performed, renumeration can be paid by 3rd party. i.e athletes provide sponsors with publicity, the basis for which is the sporting activity itself... paid for by 3rd party...public. Example of successful justification of restriction freedom of service. decision was not based on nationality. |
| Her Majesties Customs and Excise v Schindler (Case C-275/92) [1994] ECR I-1039 Schindler | Court held that lotteries are an economic activity as they are services provide for remuneration constituted by the price of the ticket. MS successfully justify a national rule restricting freedom provide service British authorities confiscated material promoting a lottery organized by four German regional boo and prosecuted the Schindlers who were agents of the lottery. UK law = crime to be involved in organizing or promoting lotteries not part of national lottery. Not in breach of 56 as high risk of fraud and the tendency of all MS to restrict gambling to protect the consumer made the law justifiable |
| Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellung-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) [2004] ECR I-9609 Omega | art 56 TFEU will govern where the other applicable freedom is entirely secondary to the freedom to provide services. A ban on providing laser tag games was held to be governed by art 56 notwithstanding that the ban also had the effect of restricting imports of the equipment used in the game and therefore restrict the free movement of goods. freedom of services, movement of workers, establishment are mutually exclusive and are subordinate to freedom of establishment. as referenced in Gebhard. eg of public policy derogation: must be a genuinely serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. = fulfilled this as the court saw the game as a threat, simulated killing of human infringed on the fundamental right to human dignity |
| Procureur du Roi v Debauve (Case 52/79) [1980] ECR 833 Debauve | Court pointed out that art 56 does not apply to activities who relevant elements are confined within a single MS. The court can be flexible where there is some cross border element. |
| de Coster v College des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (Case C-17/00) [2001] ECR I-9445 de Coster | court held that a local tax on ownership of satellite dishes breached art 56 because it would dissuade people from buying dishes and thus receiving programs broadcast in other MS. There was not similar charge on receiving TV programs transmitted by cable which was held to favor the national broadcasters. must be a cross boarder element! |
| Hubbard v Hamburger (Case C-20/92) [1993] ECR I-3777 Hubbard | Hubbard brough an action in the German courts which wold transfer ownership of land in the testator's estate in Germany to him. Both the provider of the service and the recipient of the services were based in the UK. Non German nationals who brought claims in the German courts had to provide security for costs which would cover the defendants legal costs in the event of an unsuccessful claim. Hubbard claimed this was a brach of 18 and 56 TFEU, Court agreed, german law was discriminatory on grounds of nationality. |
| van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Case 33/74) [1974] ECR 1299 van Binsbergen | established 56 and 57 prohibit measures which discriminate against service providers on basis of nationality and residence Claimants involved in legal proceedings in Netherlands, Represented a Dutch Lawyer, residing in Netherlands but moved to Belgium, lawyers capacity to represent in Netherlands instead of Belgium went against art 56. |
| Societe Generale Alsacienne de Banque SA v Koestler (Case 15/78) [1978] ECR 1971 Koestler | Court reluctant to extend art 56 to cover non-discriminatory measures as with other freedoms... French bank undertook speculative transactions on the paris stock exchange for a German national living in France then moved back to Germany. Court saw that no discrimination was present. |
| Commission v Germany (Case 205/84) [1986] ECR 3755 Insurance Services | however Court became more willing to extend to non-discriminatory measures West German rules provided that an insurance undertaking wished to provide insurance services in west germany through an agent or other intermediary could only do so through an agent or intermediary both established in west germany and authorized by west german authorities. Court held that art 56-7 prohibited no only discrimination on grounds of nationality but also all restrictions on his freedom to provide services imposed by reason of the fact that he is established in a MS other than that in which the service is to be provided. Case showed that discrimination was not a necessary requirement for a measure to be a restriction. Even non-discriminatory measure which applied without distinction to both domestic nationals and those established in other MS may still be prohibited if they acted as restrictions on the freedom of the foreign national to provided services. |
| Sager v Dennemeyer & co Ltd (Case 76/90) [1991] ECR 421 Sager | case put beyond doubt that the prohibition in article 56 extended to non-discriminatory obstacles Co is based in the UK specializing in advising the holders of patents in Germany when fees for the renewal of those patents was due and paying those fee on their behalf. German based patent agent mounted legal challenge that dennemeyer was providing legal services for clients without a license under german law. Court held that art 56 was not confined to discriminatory measures but could also extend to indistinctly applicable measures. |
| Association Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Lineas Regulares v Administración General del Estado (Case C-205/99) [2001] ECR I-1271 Analir | Court has employed a slightly wider formulation which not only encompasses restrictions which prohibit or impede the activities of provider of services established in another MS but also those which render less attractive those activities. Mirroring formulation used in freedom of establishment... |
| Guiot (Case C-272/94) [1996] ECR I-1905 Guiot | Court takes into account if relevant pubic interest is already protected by the rules of service provider's own MS. Prevents provider subject to dual burden of complying with measures in both MS This case is an example of this managing director of Luxembourg company. prosecuted in Belgium for failing to pay employer's social security contributions. Court held was unjustified restriction as the company already liable to pay contributions of rate same workers under legislation in Luxembourg. The additional financial burden on the company placed it at a competitive disadvantage compared to belgian service providers. = dual burden. |
| Cowan v Tresor Public (Case 186/87) [1989] ECR 195 Cowan | receiving services: Cowan on holiday in Paris, mugged, applied for compensation from public funds but was refused on the ground that compensation was only available to the french. According to Luisi and Carbone, art 56 guarantees freedom to travel to receive services (tourist). Protection was a corollary of that freedom. Refusal to award compensation was discriminatory contrary to art 18 TFEU. |
| Belgium v Humbel (Case 263/86) [1988] ECR 5365 Humbel | Humble was french, living in Luxembourg, charged a free (mineral) for education in belgium. Was public lower education Courses in public education are not services, therefore not in breach of 56. |
| Wirth v Landeshauptstadt Hannover (Case C-109/92) ECR I-6447 Wirth | German authorities denied education grant by a german national to study jazz in Netherlands. State funded higher edu not under art 56, however private institutions are within art 56 i.e. service for renumeration. |
| Kohll v Union des Caisses de Maladie (Case C-158/96) [1998] ECR I-1931 Kohll | health care system in Luxembourg, Kohll refused authorization for his daughter to have treatment in Germany on the grounds that it was not urgent and the treatment could be receive in Luxembourg. A barrier existed to the freedom to provide services, i.e. preauthroisation in Luxembourg necessary before access to medical care in other MS. floodgate issue of econcoic issue if all could access social welfare of all MS. needs to be guarded. |
| Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ (Case C-157/99) [2001] ECR I-5473 Geraets-Smits | medical treatment for a fee.. Dutch law provided for a healthcare scheme based on a system of agreements between sickness insurance funds and the providers of health care. Court rejects arguments that he provision of hospital care could not constitute an economic activity covered by art 56, especially where it is provided free of charge under a sickness insurance scheme. Payment for medical treatment by a sickness insurance fund was consideration for a service, i.e. third party payment. |
| R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care trust (Case C-372/04) [2006] ECR I-4325 Watts | NHS patties sho are ordinarily resident in UK are entitled to free medical treatment paid for directly by the state from general taxation. Underwent surgery in france for cost. Court held that art 56 applies where a patient receives medical services for consideration in another MS. regardless of the way in which the national health care service she is registered operates. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.