Skip to document
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

The freedom of establishment and provision of services- derogations and public-interest justifications

Module

European Law (LW511)

62 Documents
Students shared 62 documents in this course
Academic year: 2020/2021
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
University of Leeds

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Preview text

The freedom of establishment and provision of services:

derogations and public-interest justiications-

Todays’ focus-

  • Explore the regulation of and limitations on the powers of EU member states to discriminate against, or place and defend , restrictions on the freedom of businesses, professionals, and the self-employed to access, establish, and/or provide services in a Member State other than their country of nationality.

Recap: Last Lecture-

  • The freedom of establishment in article 49 TFEU includes the right to establish a primary business (primary establishment) and the right to set up extensions (e., subsidiary or agency) of a primary business in another member state in whatever legal form is appropriate ( secondary establishment ).
  • The freedom to provide services in article 56 TFEU includes the right to cross borders to provide a service, the right to cross borders to receive a service, and the right to provide or receive a service (e., online) without crossing a border.
  • Moral or ethical concerns do not determine whether a remunerated activity is considered a service for the purposes of EU law.
  • The main diference between establishment and the provision of services is that the provision of services is temporary whereas establishment is permanent, semi- permanent or stable and continuous.
  • EU member states are under a legal obligation to remove all restrictions, whether discriminatory or not, that hinder the freedom to establish or provide services in another member state.
  • These obligations apply to EU can even apply to private organisations particularly with quasi-regulatory functions or the power to hinder the freedom of EU businesses, professionals, and the self-employed to access, establish themselves, or provide services in another member state.

Key points –

  • Openly discriminatory measures can only be justiied on the basis of public interest justiications provided in 51(1), 52(1), and 62 TFEU.
  • Measures that discriminate indirectly or simply restrict the freedom of establishment or the provision of services can be justiied on the basis of the treaty derogations and other “imperative reasons in the public interest” developed continuously by the CJEU.
  • In defending any restriction, whether discriminatory or not, member states must ensure such measures are proportionate and not driven by a protectionist economic motive.

General Derogations: Articles 52(1) and 62 TFEU-

  • Member states can defend openly discriminatory measures on the basis of articles 52(1) TFEU, which applies to establishment, and 62 TFEU, which applies to the provision of services, and covers only Public policy, security, and health.
  • All restrictions must be compatible with the principle of proportionality, are subject to judicial redress, and must not be driven by a protectionist economic motive ( Eglise de Scientology).

Eglise de Scientology- Court has said only where member states interpret these public interest justiication strictly and narrowly and they apply them proportionately and only to achieve public objective. They ensure EU nationals that are negatively afected by the use of these derogations have available to them judicial redress mechanisms.

Article 52(1) Exercise of Oicial Authority-

  • Article 52(1) allows Member States to exclude and discriminate directly against foreign EU nationals from establishing themselves or providing services which, in

creditors, minority shareholders, or employees ( Überseering); and, importantly, the need to protect workers ( Viking Line ) and respect fundamental rights, such as respect for human dignity ( Omega ) and/or freedom of expression or f assembly ( Schmidberger ).

Viking Line-

If you recall Viking line was about a company based

then a high wage in your country that sought to relag

or change its primary place of establishment to a lower

wage in your country so it could employ low paid

workers to replace its workers in the higher wage

country, an Association of au trade unions worked

across borders to stop this company and to stop

company from relagging or establishing itself in a

lower wage country, the CJEU held that about where

Trade unions have the power to restrict the ability of an

EU business to access to establish themselves in

another EU member state Article 49 TFEU could apply

to these private organisations and so could have

extended vertical direct efect.

This case is important because the CJEU held that in

that case That trade unions or member states could

rely on the protection of workers as a justiication to

defend industrial action against companies like Viking

line it added that such restrictions would need to be

strictly necessary and proportionate that is trade

unions or member states imposing restrictive measures

it would have to show that industrial action or strikes

were the least restrictive option available to them to

achieve the objective of protecting workers rights and

interests the court also held that trade unions would

have to show they had exhausted or tried all other

options before taken industrial action or any other

measure that restricts the freedom of Eu businesses to

establish themselves in another EU country.

Omega-

A British Business was restricted from providing services To a German company that used its equipment to run a laser tag facility in Germany. The facility in Germany allowed customers to engage in a paintball like game except with laser guns, where they would simulate a gunight and thus simulate the killing of of other human beings. A German municipal order prohibited the simulated killings of other beings because it contravened the German constitutional principle of respect for human dignity. The CJEU held the fundamental constitutional such as human dignity and others such as the freedom of expression for example could indeed be relied upon by member states to defend measures that discriminate indirectly against simply restrict the ability of EU businesses to provide services member in another member state.

The strategic

objecive

Tacic 1: Provide very broad rights and freedoms for EU naionals to move, access, work, trade, establish, and provide services in other EU countries with no or few restricions as possible

Tacic 2: impose broad obligaions on EU member-states to not discriminate directly or indirectly or place any restricions that hinder or make free- movement more diicult or costly

Tacic 3: Restrict narrowly and strictly in the treaty the power of member states to defend openly discriminatory measures

Tacic 4: provide addiional grounds (on top of those provided in the treaty) through the case law of the CJEU for member-states to defend indirectly discriminatory measures

Remove all obstacles to intra-Community trade in order to merge the naional markets into a single market

Was this document helpful?
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

The freedom of establishment and provision of services- derogations and public-interest justifications

Module: European Law (LW511)

62 Documents
Students shared 62 documents in this course

University: University of Kent

Was this document helpful?

This is a preview

Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages
  • Access to all documents

  • Get Unlimited Downloads

  • Improve your grades

Upload

Share your documents to unlock

Already Premium?
The freedom of establishment and provision of services:
derogations and public-interest justifications-
Todays’ focus-
Explore the regulation of and limitations on the powers of
EU member states to discriminate against, or place and
defend, restrictions on the freedom of businesses,
professionals, and the self-employed to access,
establish, and/or provide services in a Member State other
than their country of nationality.
Recap: Last Lecture-
The freedom of establishment in article 49 TFEU includes
the right to establish a primary business (primary
establishment) and the right to set up extensions (e.g.,
subsidiary or agency) of a primary business in another
member state in whatever legal form is appropriate
(secondary establishment).
The freedom to provide services in article 56 TFEU
includes the right to cross borders to provide a service,
the right to cross borders to receive a service, and the
right to provide or receive a service (e.g., online) without
crossing a border.
Moral or ethical concerns do not determine whether a
remunerated activity is considered a service for the
purposes of EU law.
The main difference between establishment and the
provision of services is that the provision of services is
temporary whereas establishment is permanent, semi-
permanent or stable and continuous.
EU member states are under a legal obligation to remove
all restrictions, whether discriminatory or not, that hinder
the freedom to establish or provide services in another
member state.
These obligations apply to EU can even apply to private
organisations particularly with quasi-regulatory functions
or the power to hinder the freedom of EU businesses,
professionals, and the self-employed to access, establish
themselves, or provide services in another member state.

Why is this page out of focus?

This is a Premium document. Become Premium to read the whole document.