Free Services Cases Flashcards Preview

EU Law > Free Services Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Free Services Cases Deck (21):
1

Jany

Prostitution is a service because normally provided for remuneration

2

Society for Protection of Unborn Children v Grogan

Provision of abortion is a service

3

Deliege

Sporting activity is economic activity for purposes of Art 56.
Remuneration doesn't have to come from recipient of service so long as it comes from interested party (sponsorship)

4

Schindler

Lotteries are economic activity as they are services provided for remuneration - ticket price

5

Procureur du Roi v Debauve

Art 56 does not apply to activities whose relevant elements are confined within a single member state

6

Coster

Local tax on ownership of satellite dishes breaches Art 56 - dissuades people from buying dishes receiving programmes broadcase in other MS

7

Hubbard v Hamburger

- German law discriminatory on grounds of nationality
- cross border element despite both provider and recipient of services being in UK

8

Luisi

- law preventing money being moved over borders was an indistinctly applicable breach
- people might need to move to provide and receive services.

9

Gouda

Direct discimination and indirect discrimination were covered by Art 56

10

Van Binsbergen

- Art 56 directly effective
- Residency requirements are indirectly applicable measures, but can be justified
- here justified as applied to all individuals within MS and justified to enforce rules of professional conduct

11

Commission v Italy Italian Housing

Italian provisions allowing only Italians to have access to social housing was in breach of Art 49, 56 and 18

12

Cowan v Tresor

Tourist mugged on holiday, applies for compensation from public funds, compensation was only available to French nationals, as a tourist he was recipient of services like art galleries, refusal to provide compensation is obstacle to access/pursuit of these activities.
Breach of Art 18 and 56

13

Commission v Germany Insurance Services

National rules restricting provision of services only allowed if indistinctly applicable and if they were proportionate

14

Sager v Dennemeyer

- Art 56 prohibits rules which impede provision of service where provider lawfully provides that service in another MS
MS can impose national rules limiting freedom to provide services but these msut be
1. justified by imperative reasons
2, non-discriminatory
3. objectively necessary to ensure compliance with professional rules
4. proportionate to objective

15

Commission v Spain Museum Entrance Fees

Recipients of services should be granted access to services in question AND should benefit from any ancillary rights, like free admission

16

Kohll

- Art 56 engaged where people go to other MS to receive treatment, pay for it initially and then try and reclaim the money on their return.
- requirement that nationals must obtain prior authorisation from a social security institution before getting treatment in another MS was breach of Art 56
- MS can organise their own social security systems but htey must abide by EU law when doing so

17

Peerbooms

Claimants had paid for medical services so fulfilled econ activity requirement of Art 56

18

Watts v Bedford

Was on 1 year waiting list for hip replacement, went to France to get it done and paid, was entitled to reimbursement. Art 56 applied

19

Muller Faure

MS can restrict the freedom to provide medical services so far as
- the maintenance of treatment capacity
- or medical competence
- is essential for public health

20

Humbel

state education is not a service because it is not provided in return for remuneration

21

what gives right to services?

Art 56 - restrictions on freedom to provide services prohibited