S 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”, suggesting 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.