2.

The broad interpretation of the concept of ‘beneficiary’ which results from the wording of Article 1 (1) of Directive No 64/427/EEC in conjunction with Title I of the General Programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services is also compatible with the relevant provisions and the general objectives of the EEC Treaty. The objective of the principle of freedom of movement, which the Treaty seeks to attain as fully as possible, is that all nationals of every Member State should be able to exercise their economic activity at any place they wish in the Community by establishing themselves or providing services there. The principle of freedom of movement is therefore one of the foundations of the common market, as follows also from Article 3 (c) of the EEC Treaty. Any discrimination against nationals of the Member States on the ground of their nationality is absolutely incompatible with that principle. Of the principles laid down in the Treaty which are decisive with regard to the attainment of freedom of movement, Article 48 (freedom of movement for workers) and Article 59 (freedom to provide services) correspond, according to their wording too, to the abovementioned objective of the Treaty. Both provisions guarantee to the nationals of the Member States full freedom of movement as regards the taking up of employment and the provision of services in the whole of the common market regardless of nationality and the place of the activity. On the other hand the wording of the first paragraph of Article 52 gives rise to certain doubts because it provides for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment with regard only to the establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. However, I share the Commission's view that this provision, which differs from Articles 48 and 59, must not be considered as a departure from the fundamental principles of the Treaty. The first paragraph of Article 52, which moreover in no way precludes a guarantee of freedom of establishment going beyond its wording, must in any case not be interpreted as meaning that it permits discrimination against nationals of the Member States in no matter what circumstances; this is so because such an interpretation would infringe a fundamental principle of the EEC Treaty. Mr Advocate General Mayras stated this quite clearly in his opinion in Case 71/76 Jean Thieffry v Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats à la Cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765 at 792, when he criticized in the following terms a judgment of the Cour d'Appel, Paris, which had taken the view that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on freedom of establishment were not applicable to a French national who intended to establish himself in France: ‘This judgment appears aberrant to me. It completely misunderstands the objectives of the Treaty, in particular that of Article 52 thereof which makes freedom of establishment one of the fundamental principles of the common market. To refuse a French national — even a naturalized one — the right to establish himself in the country of which he has become a citizen appears to me to be a blatant infringement of Article 52, the aim of which is to enable each national of every Member State to practise his profession in any State of the Community and above all in the State of which he has acquired the nationality’. I can only agree with this view and thus reach the conclusion that Article 52 of the EEC Treaty does not prevent an interpretation of Directive No 64/427/EEC as meaning that persons who possess the nationality of the host State are also included among the beneficiaries in accordance with Article 1 (1).