# C_2010301EN.01000801.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/8

---

Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-397/10)

()

2010/C 301/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and I.V. Rogalski, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by imposing the following requirements in respect of the activities of temporary work agencies — the business of providing labour must be the undertaking’s sole object (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region), the agency must take a specific legal form (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region) and must hold minimum share capital of EUR 30 987 (in the Flemish Region) — the Kingdom of Belgium failed to comply with its obligations under Article 56 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by imposing the following requirements in respect of the activities of temporary work agencies — the business of providing labour must be the undertaking’s sole object (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region), the agency must take a specific legal form (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region) and must hold minimum share capital of EUR 30 987 (in the Flemish Region) — the Kingdom of Belgium failed to comply with its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission puts forward three complaints alleging infringement of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In its first complaint, the applicant claims that the requirement that the business of providing labour must be the undertaking’s sole object constitutes a significant barrier for undertakings established in other Member States which are authorised to engage in businesses of a different nature there. That measure obliges such undertakings to amend their statutes in order to provide services, even on a temporary basis, in the Brussels-Capital region.

In its second complaint, the Commission states that the requirement that an undertaking established in another Member State must possess a specific legal form or legal status constitutes a significant restriction on the freedom to provide services. The objective of protecting workers, relied upon by the defendant by way of justification, could be attained by less restrictive measures, such as a requirement that an undertaking must show that it has appropriate insurance.

In its third complaint, the applicant criticises the requirement imposed by the Flemish Region that an undertaking must hold minimum share capital of EUR 30 987, since such a requirement means that some undertakings established in other Member States might have to alter their share capital in order to provide services, even on a temporary basis, in Belgium. Less restrictive measures, such as depositing a guarantee or taking out insurance, would allow the defendant to attain its objective of protecting workers.

---