This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Case C-215/01 Schnitzer [2003] ECR I-14847

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:15

Judgement for the case Case C-215/01 Schnitzer

Table Of Contents

  • Schnitzer was MD of a Portugese company that carried out plastering work in Germany, and was fined for not being on the trades register.

  • This case addressed the distinction between freedom to provide services and the right to establishment (as was also addressed in Gebhard).

  • ECJ said that the mere fact that a business performs services identical to those it provides in its MS of origin, but has no infrastructure in the MS where it alleges establishment, does NOT mean it is established there.

  • However it also says that:

The fact that the activity is temporary does not mean that the provider of services within the meaning of the Treaty may not equip himself with some form of infrastructure in the host Member State

  • The above suggests that infrastructure alone does not = establishment (given that temporary activities put one outside the scope of Article 43). 

ECJ

  • Repeats point that whether a company is established is to be addressed in the light not only of the duration of the provision of the service but also of its regularity, periodical nature or continuity.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Case C-215/01 Schnitzer

European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1027 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1027 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...