Liberalization of cross-border services in the European Union Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.107.2020.27188Keywords:
cross-border services, free provision of services, not established personAbstract
Summary
I. Liberalization of services. II. Case of Matteo Peralta 1. Applicable Legislation 2. Situation of domestic law 3. Freedom of services 4. Flag discrimination. 5. Restrictions on services 6. Freedom of establishment. 7. Measures of equivalent effect 8. Free competition. III. Case of Alpine Investments. 1. Scope of services. 2. Restriction of origin 3. Jurisprudence Keck and Mithouard 4. Justification of the restriction 5. Need for the measure IV. Conclusions. Bibliography.
Abstract
The study addresses the methodology conceptual system and argumentative structure used by the European Union Court in the analysis of the liberalization or free provision of cross-border services between Member States, which puts the host State and the provider's State of origin into play. The conditions of the principle of equal treatment or national treatment are specified and the scenario of the proportionality principle is studied.
Judicial review of the freedom to provide services implies a trial of equalization in treatment, which follows the methodological pattern of a trial of equality: it brings the requirement of equivalence in treatment (liberalization of charges) between cross-border services and services internal, which rejects unjustified discrimination or obstacles to cross-border services in contrast to internal services.
The trial of equalization with the national presupposes accepting the validity of the national rule in a possible situation of domestic law". When the appellant questions the national rule then the matter must be resolved in a prior proportionality test.
The free provision of cross-border services usually involves the exercise of a self-employed activity on a temporary basis, compared to the vocation of permanence that characterizes the establishment of the entrepreneur for the exercise of an economic activity on their own, in the State of reception. The subjective element in the typical cases of freedom to provide services is an entrepreneur not established in the territory of the State of destination of the service.
Downloads
References
BAS SORIA, J. (2015) El IVA en las operaciones internacionales, Madrid.
CALVO CARAVACA, A.L. (2000) “Algunas cuestiones sobre la libre prestación de servicios en el Mercado Único Europeo”, Noticias de la Unión Europea, nº. 186.
DE NITTO, S. (2017) “A proposito della proporzionalità come criterio giuridico”, Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico nº. 4.
FALCON TELLA, R., y PULIDO GUERRA, E. (2013) Derecho fiscal internacional, Madrid, Barcelona, Buenos aires, Sao Paulo, 2ª. ed.
FERNANDEZ, C. (2011) “Keck y Mithouard y la libertad de establecimiento”, Gaceta jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la competencia nº. 22.
KNOBL, P. F. (1995) “A Milestone in the European Banking and Investment Services Law as well as in the Scope of the Freedom to Provide Services in the EU, Alpine Investments BV”, Maastricht journal of European and comparative law nº. 3.
KOVAR, R. (2014) “De l'arrêt Dassonville à l'arrêt Keck et Mithouard”, Revue trimestrielle de droit europeen nº 4.
LENAERTS, K. (1991) “L´egalité de traitement en Driot communautaire: un principe unique aux apparences multiples”, Cahiers de Droit européen nº. 1-2.
LIGUGNANA, G. (2011) Principio di proporzionalità e integrazione tra ordinamenti. Il caso inglese e italiano”, Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario nº. 2.
LOPEZ ESCUDERO, M. (1994) “La jurisprudencia Keck y Mithouard: una revisión al concepto de medida de efecto equivalente”, Revista de Instituciones Europeas nº. 2.
MATTERA, A. (1991) El mercado único europeo. Sus reglas de funcionamiento, Madrid.
MERINO JARA, I. (1996) “Influencia de la fiscalidad sobre la libre prestación de servicios”, Noticias de la Unión Europea, nº. 143.
MONDINI, A. (2012) Contributo allo studio del principio di proporzionalità nel sistema dell’IVA europea , Pisa .
OANTA, G.A. (2012) “La libre prestación de servicios en la Unión europea: ¿un proyecto de integración ya finalizado o todavía un proyecto en marcha?”, Unión europea Aranzadi nº. 10.
PENNICINO, S., (2008) “Ragionevolezza e proporzionalità nelle concezioni dottrinali europee e nordamericane”, Revista general de derecho público comparado nº. 3.
PINO, G. (2.014) “Diritti fondamentali e principio di proporzionalità”, Ragion pratica nº. 43.
PITTEN VELLOSO, A. (2006) “Eguaglianza tributaria e proporzionalità”, Rivista di diritto tributario, nº. 11.
ROFES I PUJOL, M.I., y GIMENO VERDEJO, C., (1996) “Crónica de la Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas: Sentencia de 17 de octubre de 1.995, Kalanke, As. C-450/93 - Sentencia de 10 de mayo de 1.995, Alpine Investments, As. C-384/93 - Sentencia de 11 de agosto de 1.995, Wielockx, As. C-80/94”, Cuadernos europeos de Deusto nº. 14.
SEGURA SERRANO, A. (2.003) El interés general y el comercio de servicios, Madrid.
STUYCK, J. (1994) “Cour de justice, 24 novembre 1993, affaires jointes C-267 et C-268/91, Keck et Mithouard: Observations: "L'arrêt Keck et Mithouard et ses conséquences sur la libre circulation des marchandises", Cahiers de droit europeen, nº. 3-4.
URANIA GALETTA, D. (1998) “El principio de proporcionalidad en el Derecho comunitario”, Cuadernos de Derecho público nº. 5.
VARA de PAZ, N. (1981) “La libertad de establecimiento y la libre prestación de servicios”, Revista de Derecho mercantil, nº. 161-162.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
