Section outline
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student identifies the scope and characteristics of the free movement of services.
- Student distinguishes between services and establishment under EU law.
- Student applies CJEU rulings to determine the legality of service-related national measures.
- Student evaluates the balance between economic freedoms and public interest justifications.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 56-62
- Directive 2005/36
- Directive 2006/123
- Case C-33/74 Van Binsbergen
- Case C-186/87 Cowan
- C-137/09 Josemans
Task: Case-Based Problem
Cross-border digital consultancy and restrictions on service provision
Anna, a Finnish national, runs a small online consultancy in Helsinki that provides digital compliance services (GDPR advice). She wants to provide services to clients in Italy without establishing a permanent presence there. Italian law requires that providers of data protection consultancy must register in a national professional registry, foreign service providers must establish a physical office in Italy before offering services, foreign providers must pay a €2,500 administrative fee for temporary cross-border services, and online service providers must use an Italian VAT representative even for temporary services. Anna argues these rules violate Article 56 TFEU and the Services Directive (2006/123/EC).
Student Tasks (800–1,000 words): Identify which of the Italian requirements restrict the free movement of services. Apply relevant case law. Assess whether any restrictions can be justified. Explain the distinction between “establishment” and “services” in this scenario, referencing Gebhard.