okay so the right of establishment as you know also covers the rights conferred on companies and you will be reading it from your chapters then we move to the free movement of services the first verse is again the founding treaty articles 56 and 57 provides for the principle of free movement of services on temporary basis when a person established in a member state moves to another member state to provide or to receive services on temporary basis he is covered by article 56 and 57 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union article 57 defines services and applies the principle of equal treatment to the service provider therefore the structure of articles 56 and 57 in respect of equal treatment do not much differ from the provisions as regards free movement of workers and establishment however for many years in the EU free movement of services has been seen as poor in relation to other freedoms can you imagine why you know the reason why free movement of services were seen as poor or subordinates when you compare it with other freedoms provided in the founding treaties you know the answer yes this is no good no when we stated that last week when are the provisions as regards services applied when when a situation is not governed by the provisions on other freedoms okay that is why we stated that last week as you would remember the provisions as regards services apply where only if the situation concerned is not governed by free movement of goods persons or capital okay therefore that is why traditionally free movement of services has been seen as subordinate to other freedoms however today services include or cover a void range of situations and in this regard we differentiate between three situations first you can state those when we speak about freedom of services we may mean three different things what are they exactly the first situation is where a service provider can move from one member state to another to provide professional services therefore in the first situation the service provider may move from one member state to another to provide professional services such as lawyers such as doctors such as architects when they go to another member state on temporary basis to provide professional services yes the reason is that according to the founding treatise the arcticus 56:57 as regards provisional services only apply when the situation does not fall under different freedoms they are more specifically provided in the treatise that is why this is a more general freedom when you compare it with the others second the second situation exactly when this when a service receiver or as the service receiver can also move from one member state to another for example in search of health care or tourism or education and third exactly neither the provider nor the receiver moves however this service itself moves for example over the web such as internet game link dessert the service itself for example in turn over the web such as Internet game link gambling yes online gambling no service provider is in his all member state service receiver sorry the service provided is in his own Member State the service receiver also in his own member state which moves here over the Internet the service when you speak about service receivers or service providers of free more length than they have to travel from one member state to another on the on the online services there is no travel by people the service moves this may happen through emails this may happen over the web by phone or by cable for instance one of the most important decisions of the Court of Justice on this is open investments of 93 the decision of the Court of Justice in open investments here the Dutch Ministry of Finance prohibited a Dutch company from telephoning calling phoning the individuals in the Netherlands and in other member states to offer them there is financial services the Dutch Ministry of Finance prohibited the a Dutch company from telephoning individuals in the Netherlands or in other member states to offer them there is financial services unless they had the prior in Turkish earned jacket the prior written approval of the clients the Corps of Justice provided that article 56 covered services which the provider offered by phone to potential receivers customers established in other member states without moving from the member state in which the service provider was established one important thing about the provision of services under the treaty provisions is that articles 56 and 57 please read these provisions from the founding treaties when you get ready for the final exam articles 56 and 57 only provide rights for service providers therefore we have been speaking about service receivers we have been speaking about the service itself but articles 56 and 57 only provide rights for service providers so how do we understand that service receivers also have rights or the service itself is a also included here in this free moment how do we know yes it exactly from the decisions of the Court of Justice therefore it is the Court of Justice which has interpreted articles 56 and 57 first as making a distinction between free movement of service providers and service receivers although the provision only is confined to service providers and second the court also provided that the service itself is also here included therefore this decision was about the situations where neither provider or the receiver travels and in 1998 92 and 93 in the joint cases Louise e & Carboni who will make a presentation about that not here the Court of Justice provided that the service receivers are also included within this free within this type of free movement in this in these joint cases two Italians were fined for taking more money out of Italy then the currency regulations permitted they were going to other member states they plan to go to other member states as tourists and also to receive medical treatment the court the European Court of Justice sad that the provision the provisions on the freedom of services also covers freedom to receive services it explained that the freedom of the freedom to receive services is a necessary part necessary corollary of the right of providing services therefore according to the court individuals receiving medical treatment and those traveling for education or tourists traveling to other member states are also covered by the provisions of free movement of services since they are service receivers please don't forget about this case law Louisiana Carboni where the European Court of Justice provided for provided that service receivers are also included do you know why because we will be using this we will be discussing this case in the second semester when we interpret or when we speak about free movement of services on their anchor agreement and under the Association Council decisions and under the Additional Protocol where we speak about the right of free movement or the free movement of services for Turkish nationals okay there as well the Additional Protocol only provides for freedom of services it does not make a differentiation between service providers and service receivers okay one question for you then in the louisiana Carboni where there was no such distinction also between free movement of soil a freedom of service providers and freedom of service receivers the Court of Justice underlined the importance of the fact that service receivers must also here be included hmm so it included twists it included students it included people who take medical treatments and go from whichever from one were set to another under this type of freedom now the question is in the legal rules of Turkey you relations in Ankara agreement in the end in the Additional Protocol which provides specific rules for this bill especially there is no differentiation either do you think that we can apply this interpretation of the court of justice there you are right we thought the same however the Court of Justice said no okay you will be this I think this is the most interesting part of the second semester that we will be dealing with the decisions of the court of justice as regards Turkish nationals the there is and there is important case law where the Court of Justice interpreted free movement of services there the case law was about free movement of service providers like the provision itself however one day there was a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice about Turkish national who would like to visit he her I think it was her stepfather in one of the member states and the question was whether she could have enjoyed free movement of service receivers because she would have travelled as a tourists we thought that same interpretation may be made because here the interpretation since the Luiza carbona is so settled now the service receivers I also included the Court of Justice said sorry this is an interpretation of an international agreement and not the founding treaty so we now know that different piece of legislation can be interpreted differently by the court of justice if the court of justice that was Leyla a gem Dimmick on decision of the Court of Justice and there if the court had decided that tourists were also included Turkish tourists were also included or and enjoy a free movement of services what would be the first result of that no need of visa to travel EU member states who for Turkish tourists for Turkish everyone Turkish nationals hmm so this has been criticised very much in academia this decision of the Court of Justice but this is the reality that the court decided as such there is an important case or on different aspects of free movement of services and few more model workers as you would be seen later all right so when we speak about services the first question is what is a service according to the article 57 as service has three elements sorry sorry sorry free moment of services free movement of services have three elements according to article 57 we need services we need remuneration and third we need temporary natcher article 57 paragraph one gives examples of different services which includes activities of industrial natcher or activities of craftsman or in activities of commercial character however with the case law of the Court of Justice this list has been expanded according to Louisa Carboni touristic activities educational activities medical activities are included or transmission of a television signal or signal by a cable TV or lotteries insurance and sports activities are all services no no no this is all I expanded by the case law therefore it can also expand secondly services are according to article 57 services are normally provided for remuneration this requirement is provided to exclude the gratitude gratitude is for free services for free activities from the scope of the founding treaties therefore certain services as a part of the welfare system or welfare state have presented important problems for EU law for instance as regards state education in humble a decision given by the court of justice in 1986 State Education did not concert constitute a service because the state was not seeking a gainful activity it was only fulfilling its duties because the same considerations do not exist for private education there is different case though here in the decision of ways in 1992 the court of justice provided that private education could constitute a service when it was essentially financed out of private funds in particular by the students or by their parents and where the service provider sought an economic profit turn element is that is the temporary nature of services and this is the key factor distinguishing services from the right of establishment according to the European Court of Justice the temporal nature of the activities has to be determined by taking into consideration first the duration of the provision of the service have long second its regularity third its continuity and fourth periodicity but however as we have stated last time the service providers can still equip themselves with necessary facilities necessary equipment such as offices chambers consulting rooms if there are necessary for performing the services according to the court of justice there is no magic rule to differentiate between the services and the right of establishment the court the national courts how to make this differentiation on case-by-case basis according to the primary and secondary legislation the service providers and service receivers enjoy certain rights in the EU the first group of Rights is the rights of entry so the rights of departure entry and residence as we have stated last week these rights mentioned are today governed by the citizens rights directive in particular for the service providers who go to another member state for less than three months therefore for those service providers going to another member state for less than three months the citizens rights directive as we've spoken last week will apply as any other migrants but other service providers going for longer periods are not covered by this directive the writers say this is not important because mostly for the service providers going for long for the service providers the European Court of Justice rely on treaty provisions according to the Court of Justice the requirement to obtain an additional identity document other than the a passport or an ID is the breach of article 56 or for instance deportation of a service provider or service receiver on the ground that he did not present a valid passport or a valid ID card was found in breach of article 56 according to the court of justice the right of entry to a member state to provide a service includes the individuals the companies and their workforce therefore according to the court the companies may also bring their workforce to provide a service in another member state and the workforce may even include third country nationals the requirement here is that the third country national should not seek access to the workforce also equal to the labor market of the host state and should go back to his country of residence once the contract is finished therefore according to the court of justice free moment or a free moment of service providers include individuals companies and even their workforce a company who would like to provide services in another member state may also bring its workforce in Turkish workforce to another member state the workforce may include also third country nationals third country national is used as a concept to mean foreigners in EU law okay instead of foreigners mostly we say third country nationals to mean the non Nationals of that state therefore they may also include the firk workforce may also include the third country nationals provided that the workers would go back to their country of origin and they would not seek access to the labour market of that Member State I will take the questions later second aspect or second right is right of access to the market in services in other member states right of access to the marketing services other member states according to article 57 discriminatory measures are prohibited therefore both as weakness right the discrimination all based on nationality both for service providers and service receivers are prohibited under article 57 meaning discrimination based on nationality meaning whether the person is national or a migrant in that member state however under article 56 direct discrimination based on place of establishment is also prohibited according to the Court of Justice the Iraq discrimination based on nationality and place of establishment is governed by article 56 and such national rules can only be saved based on the derogations provided under article 52 including public policy public security and public health we call this also distinctly applicable measures discriminating based on nationality and place of establishment secondly indistinctly applicable measures are also prohibited these measures are the ones which impose additional burden on foreign service providers they also breach article 56 unless they are saved by overriding many reasons of public interests for instance in a decision Commission versus Germany Commission versus Germany the court found that the German rules requiring insurance companies to provide insurance in Germany to be both established and authorized in Germany breached article 56 and 57 of the treaty because according to the court such requirements increase the costs for the insurance companies that would like to provide a service in Germany or that would like to provide services in Germany only on occasional basis okay I think it's enough for today