Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 5 December 1990
1 Original language: German.
2 Council Directive of 21 December 1988 (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
3 Council Directive of 16 June 1975 (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 22).
4 Judgment in Case 33/74 Van Bimbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [ 1974] ECR 1299: thai judgment primarily deals with direct effect in connection with the prohibition of discrimination: the judgment in Joined Cases 110 and 111/78 Ministère public v Van Wesemael [1979] ECR 35, at paragraphs 19 et seq. and 24 et seq. goes further.
5 The fact that the three applications only relate to such remunerated services is evident in each case from the terms of the application which refer expressly to services and thus in that respect to Article 60.
6 See the judgment of 3 February 1982 in Joined Cases 62 and 63/81 Seco v EVI[1982] ECR 223, at paragraph 8.
7 See the judgments in Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro [1984] ECR 377 and in Case 186/87 Cowan v Tresor Public [1989] ECR 195
8 See judgment in Case 155/73 Procureur dit Roi v Sacchi [1974] ECR 409 at paragraph 6, ludgmem in Case 52/79 Procureur du Roi v Debaitve [1980] F.CR 833 at paragraph 8. ludgmcnl in Case 62/79 Codile! \ClHf V'og Films and Othcri [1980] ECR 881. |udgmcnt in Case 262/81 Codile! \Cmc log filmi [1982] ECR 3381 and ludgment in Case 252/85 Rond van Adverteerders \Xclheríaiidí [1988] FCR 2085, see also the Įudgmeni in Case 205/84 (Commision Germany [ 1986] r CR 3755
9 Example a French building companv builds a house in ltalv tor a client resident in France
10 Foc. cit., p 205
11 However, the interests of persons resident in the host State may be concerned in other respects, for example in the event of building works by the provider of the service.
12 This is to say, with regard to a number of services the recipient of the service may travel to the State where the person providing the service is established, if the latter is impeded in carrying on his activity in the Slate in which the recipient of tne service is resident
13 Sec the judgment of 27 March 1990 in Case 113/89 Rush Portuguesa v Office nailonal d'immigration [1990] ECR I-1417. at paragraph 12 in fine.
14 See judgment in Seco v EVI, cited above, at paragraph 8 in fine, the same consideration clearly underlies the ludgment in Rush Portuguesa cited above, particularly at paragraphs 11 and 12 We are not here concerned with discrimination lustified under Article 56 m coniunction with Article 66
15 Judgment in Case 279/80 Webb [1981] ECR 3305, at paragraph 16, judgment of 4 December 1986 in Case 205/84 Commission v Germany (freedom to provide insurance services) [1986] ECR 3755, at paragraph 26, sec to that effect also ine ludgment in the Van Wesemael case, cited above
16 See the wording of the judgment in Case 39/75 Coenen v Sociaal-Economische Raad [1975] ECR 1547, at paragraph 6 in fine: (requirements) ... which may prevent or otherwise obstruct the activities of the person providing the service.
17 See the judgment in Case 205/84 Commission v Germany, cited above, at paragraph 27; judgment in Case 279/80 Webb, cited above, at paragraph 17; and the Van Wesemael judgment, cited above, at paragraph 27 et seq.
18 Case 205/84, cited above
19 Emphasis added.
20 Emphasis added.
21 See Commimon v Germany ai paragraphs 30 et seq , 34 et seq ; 42 et seq.
22 OJ 1989 C 263, p 1.
23 For this reason Ī also see a difference between proper appreciation and the widest possible dissemination of knowledge, put forward as an interest by the French Government.
24 Namely the proper appreciation of the resources in question.
25 Loc. cit., at paragraph 18.
26 Loc. cit., at paragraphs 30 and 31.