Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid

Last updated
Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid
European stars.svg
European Court of Justice
Decided 3 December 1974
Full case name Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid
CaseC-33/74
CelexID 61974CJ0033
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:1974:131

Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging 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

Notes

    References

    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.