Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF).
Date: 2013-07-18
20. It should be borne in mind, next, that Directive 2005/29 in principle fully harmonises at Community level the rules relating to unfair business‑to-consumer commercial practices, so that, as Article 4 thereof expressly provides, Member States may not adopt more restrictive rules than those provided for in the directive, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection (see Case C-304/08 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft  [2010] ECR I-217, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
31. In that connection, it is true that a national measure in a sphere which has been the subject of exhaustive harmonisation at EU level must be assessed in the light of the provisions of the harmonising measure and not those of the Treaty (see, to that effect, Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband  [2003] ECR I-14887, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). However, Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29 – as indicated by recital 9 in the preamble to that directive – provides specifically that, in relation to financial services, Directive 2005/29 does not exhaustively harmonise the existing law and leaves Member States freedom of action, which they must exercise in accordance with the Treaty.
32. Admittedly, national legislation – such as that at issue in the main proceedings – which, as worded, applies to Belgian operators and to operators of other Member States alike is, generally, capable of falling within the scope of the provisions on the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty only to the extent that it applies to situations connected with trade between Member States (see Joined Cases C‑570/07 and C‑571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez  [2010] ECR I‑4629, paragraph 40, and Joined Cases C‑357/10 to C‑359/10 Duomo Gpa and Others  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
33. In the present case, however, it is conceivable that businesses established in Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium are interested in making, in that Member State, combined offers involving at least one financial component, such as the offer at issue in the main proceedings.
35. As regards the substance, it is settled case-law that the free movement of services provided for in Article 56 TFEU requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services established in other Member States, but also the abolition of any restriction – even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those from other Member States – which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (see, to that effect, Case C‑205/99 Analir and Others [2001] ECR I‑1271, paragraph 21, and Case C‑439/99 Commission  v Italy  [2002] ECR I‑305, paragraph 22).
37. It is settled case-law that a restriction on the freedom to provide services is warranted only if it pursues a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and is justified by overriding reasons of public interest; if that is the case, it must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, Case C‑341/05 Laval un Partneri  [2007] ECR I‑11767, paragraph 101 and the case-law cited).
38. In the present case, the objective pursued by Article 72 of the Law of 6 April 2010 is to protect the interests of consumers, as is moreover apparent from the very title of that law. The protection of consumers is recognised in the case-law as an overriding reason of public interest, capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services (see Case 286/81 Oosthoek’s Uitgeversmaatschappij  [1982] ECR 4575, paragraph 16, and Case 220/83 Commission  v France  [1986] ECR 3663, paragraph 20).