This is an extract of our Freedom Of Services document, which we sell as part of our GDL EU Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL EU Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Revision: EU Law
[FREEDOM TO PROVIDE/RECEIVE SERVICES - ARTICLES 56-62 TFEU]
A56 only makes reference to provision but CJ has made it clear that it applies to receiving services as well as provision of services
Freedom of establishment (a physical presence in another MS) is not required for A56 to be activated
Covers individuals and companies providing services
Van Binsbergen v Bestuur: confirms that A56 is directly effective: horizontally and vertically
Limitations on freedom to provide services are the same as on establishment - Article 62 TFEU
A57 says that A56 will apply where none of the other freedoms apply - 'catch all' freedom
A57 - services - 'normally provided for remuneration' : industrial, commercial, activities of craftsmen, activities of the professions: e.g. legal service, insurance + other financial services
Prostitution recognised as service in Jany and the provision of abortion in Society for the Protection of Unborn Children v Grogan - but doesn't stop MS from prohibiting the services e.g. abortion - Ireland
"Genuine and effective economic activity"
Widely interpreted: o
Deliege v Ligue Francophone: Sporting activity (Judo) at amateur level was an economic activity for purpose of A56
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v Schindler: lotteries = an economic activity: services provided for remuneration
Provision of information will fall outside A56 unless there is a connection between the persons distributing and the provider of the services o
Grogan - distribution of information about abortion not protected as it was provided not by the clinic themselves but by students as an exercise in freedom of expression
Cross border element
Must be some cross border element - Procureur du Roi v Debauve: A56 won't apply to 'activities whose relvent elements are confined within a single MS' - but CJ has become more flexible - Deliege - sufficient that she participated in competitions in other MS 0 in de Coster v College des bourgmestre - local tax on ownership of satellite dishes breached A56 because would dissuade people from receiving programmes broadcast in other MS
Provider/Recipient of the service don't have to be in different MS: Hubbard v Hamburger: both recipient and provider in UK: but had to make claim in German court - German law was discriminatory
Rights granted 1
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL EU Law Notes.