Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:439
Date: 2016-06-14
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Free movement of capital;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Belgium

summary of that line of case-law, points 33 to 38 of the Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Venturini and Others (C‑159/12 to C‑161/12, EU:C:2013:529). As Cheynel, B., points out in ‘Les situations purement internes à la lumière de l’arrêt Libert e.a.’, Revue des affaires européennes, 2013/2, p. 405, in connection with the judgment of 8 May 2013, Libert and Others (C‑197/11 and C‑203/11, EU:C:2013:288), ‘the Court appears to have recognised in that judgment that the mere potential for restrictive effects on the part of national legislation is now sufficient to bring that legislation within the scope of Article 21 TFEU (free movement of citizens), Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers), Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (free movement of services) and Article 63 TFEU (free movement of capital), irrespective of the situation of the EU national claiming that such legislation is contrary to those provisions’ (p. 407). 17 See, in particular, order of 14 March 2013, Loreti and Others (C‑555/12, not published, EU:C:2013:174, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). 18 See, inter alia, judgment of 21 April 2005, Commission v Greece (C‑140/03, EU:C:2005:242, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited). 19 See, in particular, judgment of 6 October 2015, Schrems (C‑362/14, EU:C:2015:650, paragraph 67). 20 See, in particular, judgments of 18 December 2014, Abdida (C‑562/13, EU:C:2014:2453, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited), and 15 October 2015, Biovet (C‑306/14, EU:C:2015:689, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited). 21 That case-law reflects a ‘trend towards the harmonious reconciliation of the essential requirements of the internal market, in this instance the freedom of establishment and the protection of public health’ (see Michel, V., ‘Laboratoires d’analyses médicales’, Revue Europe No 2, February 2011, comm. 59). 22 See judgments of 19 May 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑531/06, EU:C:2009:315), and Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316). 23 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 23). 24 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 24). 25 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 25). 26 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 31). 27 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 40). 28 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 29 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited). 30 See, in particular, judgment of 19 May 2009, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). 31 See, in particular, judgment of 19 May 2009, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited). 32 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited). 33 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited). 34 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). 35 Paragraph 56. 36 See points 83 and 84 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:305). 37 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 57). 38 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 57). 39 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 58). 40 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 65). 41 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited). 42 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 43 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited). 44 See judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v France (C‑89/09, EU:C:2010:772, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited). 45 See, in particular, judgment of 10 March 2009, Hartlauer (C‑169/07, EU:C:2009:141, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited). 46 See judgments of 19 May 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑531/06, EU:C:2009:315, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited), and Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraph 33). 47 See judgments of 19 May 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑531/06, EU:C:2009:315, paragraph 57), and Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraph 33). 48 See judgments of 19 May 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑531/06, EU:C:2009:315, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited), and Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others (C‑171/07 and C‑172/07, EU:C:2009:316, paragraph 34). 49 See, in particular, judgment of 10 July 2014, Ogieriakhi (C‑244/13, EU:C:2014:2068, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).