(post) Keck Case Law on the Freedom to Provide Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table of ContentsA. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1B. Restriction of the Free Movement of Goods........................................................................31. Product Requirements and Certain Selling Arrangements...............................................31.1 Dassonville................................................................................................................31.2 Limitation by <strong>Keck</strong>....................................................................................................62. Market Access Test...........................................................................................................92.1 Notion of Market Access...........................................................................................9(a) Academic Discussion...........................................................................................10(b) Part of <strong>Keck</strong>.........................................................................................................112.2 Recent Developments – Restrictions on Use...........................................................142.3 Market Hindrance – Return to Dassonville?............................................................18(a) Economic Bans....................................................................................................20(b) Liberalisation of Intra-Union Trade....................................................................23(c) Use of the Term “hinder”.....................................................................................25C. Restriction of the Freedom to Provide and Receive Services............................................271. Services...........................................................................................................................272. Similarities between Goods and Services.......................................................................292.1 Mutual Recognition – Säger....................................................................................302.2 Discriminatory Measures.........................................................................................332.3 Market Access..........................................................................................................35(a) Mutual Recognition.............................................................................................36(b) Non-Discrimination.............................................................................................403. Product Requirements and Selling Arrangements for Services......................................433.1 Service Requirements..............................................................................................443.2 Certain Arrangements for the Provision of Services...............................................46(a) Need for Limitation – Aim of Art 56 TFEU........................................................47(b) Acknowledgement by the Court..........................................................................49(c) Remaining Difficulties.........................................................................................55D. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................58
A. IntroductionRestrictions of the free movement of goods are prohibited by Art 34 TFEU. Art 56 and Art57 TFEU provide the same prohibition with regard to the freedom to provide and receiveservices. Up until now, the case law on restrictions of the free movement of goods hasbeen far more extensive and nuanced, especially with the distinction between “productrequirements” and “certain selling arrangements” made in the famous <strong>Keck</strong>-decision.However, with an increasing case load the Court’s attention seems to have graduallyshifted to Art 56 and Art 57 TFEU. 1Even though goods and services are covered by separate Treaty provisions, it has beenargued that the restriction of those two market freedoms requires equal treatment becauseof their substantial similarities and the fact that they are economically often stronglyrelated. 2 This close relation is, for example, visible in the area of advertising. In answeringthe question of whether a national ban on advertising is restricting, the focus could lieeither on the advertised product or on the advertising service. 3 The Court itself has heldthat, in the field of telecommunications, it is difficult to determine generally whether it is1See Meulman/de Waele, “A Retreat from Säger? Servicing or Fine-Tuning the Application of Article 49EC”, 33(3) LIEI (2006), 207, at 208 f; Hatzopoulos/Do, “The <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Law</strong> of the ECJ Concerning theFree Provision of Services: 2000–2005”, 43 CML Rev. (2006), 923, at 923 f. The Court decided 40service cases between 1995-1999 and 140 between 2000-2005.2See the Commission’s Guide to the Free Movement of Goods, SEC(2009) 673 final, at p. 47; see alsoMaduro, “Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement” in Andenas/Roth (Eds.), Services and FreeMovement in EU <strong>Law</strong> (OUP, 2002), p. 41, at p. 67; Spaventa, “From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a(Non-)Economic European Constitution”, 41 CML Rev. (2004), 743, at 748.3Compare Vilaça, “On the Application of <strong>Keck</strong> in the Field of Free Provision of Services” inAndenas/Roth (Eds.), Services and Free Movement in EU <strong>Law</strong> (OUP, 2002), p. 25, at pp. 36 ff.1
Page 1: The Influence of the (post<
Page 5 and 6: criteria. Finally, it will be demon
Page 7 and 8: mandatory requirements, also known
Page 9 and 10: in academic literature. 22 These de
Page 11 and 12: find a breach of Art 34 TFEU. Altho
Page 13 and 14: appropriate restriction test is the
Page 15 and 16: products. Consumers were more likel
Page 17 and 18: principle of mutual recognition est
Page 19 and 20: product. However, this argument is
Page 21 and 22: to the Court those are: first, meas
Page 23 and 24: context of very specific use restri
Page 25 and 26: that the Court followed a de minimi
Page 27 and 28: encourage the unhindered pursuit of
Page 29 and 30: At first sight, it seems that the C
Page 31 and 32: understood. It includes lotteries 8
Page 33 and 34: meaning of the case law is not enti
Page 35 and 36: A.G. Jacobs in his opinion in Säge
Page 37 and 38: In its case law 112 the Court clari
Page 39 and 40: As already shown above, the Court f
Page 41 and 42: establishment does so even more. 12
Page 43 and 44: itself. 135 This equals a product r
Page 45 and 46: services. 141With regard to service
Page 47 and 48: 3.1 Service RequirementsAdditional
Page 49 and 50: equivalent to “certain selling ar
Page 51 and 52: of goods, it will also have to limi
Page 53 and 54:
marketing method, because it only a
Page 55 and 56:
selling arrangements. 173In Delièg
Page 57 and 58:
Directive. 180 Art 4 (1) of the Dir
Page 59 and 60:
services will face similar difficul
Page 61 and 62:
However, such difficulties in findi
Page 63 and 64:
outside the scope of Art 56 TFEU. T
Page 65 and 66:
• Case C-169/91,
Page 67 and 68:
• Joined Cases C
Page 69 and 70:
Media, [2008] ECR I-5785• <strong
Page 71 and 72:
• M. P. Maduro, “The Saga of Ar
Page 73 and 74:
Case Notes• G. C
Page 75:
Written work that has been submitte
show all

(post) Keck Case Law on the Freedom to Provide Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?