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

cross-border element has proved to be sufficient to trigger the Treaty provisions. 952. Similarities between Goods and ServicesAs we have seen in section one, the restriction test in the field of goods was first andforemost established in the leading cases of Dassonville, Cassis and <strong>Keck</strong> in which theCourt defined “measures having equivalent effect” in the meaning of Art 34 TFEU.With regard to services Art 56 TFEU provides that:“[R]estrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibitedin respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member Stateother than that of the person for whom the services are intended.”Contrary to Art 34 TFEU, the Treaty provisions on services already expressly refer to theprinciple of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. According to Art 57 TFEU“the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue hisactivity in the Member State where the service is provided, under the sameconditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.”How did the Court interpret the notion of restriction under Art 56 and Art 57 TFEU? The95Compare Opinion of A.G. Léger in <strong>Case</strong> C-208/05, ITC Innovative Technology Center, [2007] ECR I-181, paras. 118 ff; Spaventa, “Leaving <strong>Keck</strong> behind? The Free Movement of Goods after the Rulings inCommission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos”, 34 EL Rev. (2009) 914, at 927.30