Misplaced Pages

Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (May 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid
CourtEuropean Court of Justice
Citation(1974) Case 33/74
Keywords
Free movement of services

Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (1974) Case 33/74 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

Facts

A Dutch legal adviser transferred his residence from the Netherlands to Belgium while proceedings were taking place before a Dutch social security court for his client, Mr Van Binsbergen. Dutch law stated only those established in the Netherlands could act as legal advisers. The court asked whether article 56 had direct effect, and if the rule was compatible. UK and Ireland argued that the services article should not have direct effect.

Judgment

The Court of Justice held that TFEU article 56 did have direct effect after the expiry period. The public interest in administration of justice could be ensured by requiring an address for a service to be maintained, rather than a residence.

16 In relation to a professional activity the exercise of which is similarly unrestricted within the territory of a particular member state, the requirement of residence within that state constitutes a restriction which is incompatible with articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty if the administration of justice can satisfactorily be ensured by measures which are less restrictive, such as the choosing of an address for service.

26 Therefore, as regards at least the specific requirement of nationality or of residence, Articles 59 and 60 impose a well-defined obligation, the fulfilment of which by the member states cannot be delayed or jeopardized by the absence of provisions which were to be adopted in pursuance of powers conferred under Article 63 and 66.


A requirement that the person providing the service must be habitually resident within the territory of the state where the service is to be provided may deprive Article 59 of all useful effect.

See also

Freedom of services cases
TFEU arts 56-62
Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006
Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd (1991) C-76/90
Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën (1995) C-384/93
Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds (2001) C-157/99
Omega GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin Bonn (2004) C-36/02
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska BAF (2007) C-319/05
Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (2010) C‑137/09
see EU law

Notes

References

Categories: