Freedom Of Services Analysis
FREEDOM OF SERVICES
Article 56-“Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended”.
Article 57-“Services shall be considered to be "services" within the meaning of the Treaties where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.
"Services" shall in particular include:(a) activities of an industrial character;
(b) activities of a commercial character;(c) activities of craftsmen;
(d) activities of the …show more content…
Services is quite similar with goods and in the same time very different but difference here that goods you can feel it but in the services not, it is like sell e-book in the internet. Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish them, I want to mentioned one case Schindler about lottery and ECJ sad that when you buy lottery this provision fell in free movement of services not goods because yes you buy lottery it is paper and you buy it for the win prize that is why it is free movement of services. Natural persons who is European Union citizen and EEA and Swiss citizens can use Article 56 the same for companies when their register office in the EU, however if person is not member of European Union they cannot invoke for Article …show more content…
At the same time we faced with indirect discrimination when the action is again forward to non-domestic services providers, like in case Ciola (1999) when Austrian government created some rules and quotas for moorings for non-domestic citizens . In direct or indirect discrimination, victims are non-domestic citizens who faced with some discrimination and cannot provide services like national citizens where they want to provide services. Article 56 TFEU not only related to discrimination but also for restriction, no matter in which Member States you want to provide services, it cannot be restricted. I want to mentioned case Van Binsbergen (1974) when Mr. Kortmann a Dutch national who works in Netherlands in social security matters and provide services in this sphere and represent Mr. van Binsbergen in the Dutch social security court. Amid the procedures, Mr. Kortman decided to move to Belgium, and in the same time continue to provide services there, Dutch social security court held that only persons who live in Netherlands can provide services in this case because if you leave Netherlands you can speak with somebody else about social security matters. The court had decision about that question and held that it is not proper to restrict somebodies rules to provide
Article 56-“Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended”.
Article 57-“Services shall be considered to be "services" within the meaning of the Treaties where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.
"Services" shall in particular include:(a) activities of an industrial character;
(b) activities of a commercial character;(c) activities of craftsmen;
(d) activities of the …show more content…
Services is quite similar with goods and in the same time very different but difference here that goods you can feel it but in the services not, it is like sell e-book in the internet. Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish them, I want to mentioned one case Schindler about lottery and ECJ sad that when you buy lottery this provision fell in free movement of services not goods because yes you buy lottery it is paper and you buy it for the win prize that is why it is free movement of services. Natural persons who is European Union citizen and EEA and Swiss citizens can use Article 56 the same for companies when their register office in the EU, however if person is not member of European Union they cannot invoke for Article …show more content…
At the same time we faced with indirect discrimination when the action is again forward to non-domestic services providers, like in case Ciola (1999) when Austrian government created some rules and quotas for moorings for non-domestic citizens . In direct or indirect discrimination, victims are non-domestic citizens who faced with some discrimination and cannot provide services like national citizens where they want to provide services. Article 56 TFEU not only related to discrimination but also for restriction, no matter in which Member States you want to provide services, it cannot be restricted. I want to mentioned case Van Binsbergen (1974) when Mr. Kortmann a Dutch national who works in Netherlands in social security matters and provide services in this sphere and represent Mr. van Binsbergen in the Dutch social security court. Amid the procedures, Mr. Kortman decided to move to Belgium, and in the same time continue to provide services there, Dutch social security court held that only persons who live in Netherlands can provide services in this case because if you leave Netherlands you can speak with somebody else about social security matters. The court had decision about that question and held that it is not proper to restrict somebodies rules to provide