The Court held that tourism was a service and that tourists were entitled to equal treatment under [Article 18], including equal access to criminal injuries compensation.

A German national resided in Italy with his wife, an Italian national. He decided to practise in Milan without having registered with the Milan Bar as required and was suspended for failing to register. Was he ‘established’ for the purposes of EU law?

‘Establishment’ is given a wide meaning and the applicant was ‘established’ for the purposes of EU law.

UK Customs and Excise confiscated invitations to participate in a German lottery on the ground that they contravened national lotteries legislation.

The Court of Justice, finding that lottery activities constitute services, held that although the legislation applied without distinction to national and non-national lotteries, it was likely to ‘prohibit or otherwise impede’ the provision of lottery services and therefore infringed [Article 56].

According to Finnish law, a fishing licence which Mr Gustafsson had paid for gave him the right to fish even in private waters. When Mr Gustafsson fished in Mr Jägerskiöld’s (private) waters, Mr Jägerskiöld complained, arguing that Finnish law breached EU law on (amongst other things) the free movement of services.

The Court of Justice held that the provisions on the freedom to provide services could apply in theory but they did not apply to activities which were confined in all respects within a single Member State such as those in the case concerned.

Whether Czech and Polish prostitutes working in the Netherlands were self-employed persons.

They were self-employed for the purposes of EU law. It is interpreted widely.

German authorities made an order prohibiting simulated killing in the course of a laser game on the basis of the game jeopardizing public order, with human dignity being one of the principles safeguarded.

The Court of Justice held that the protection of human dignity constituted a ground of public policy which could justify the restriction on the freedom to provide services.

Whether only those activities inherent in a Dutch national’s profession which were connected with the exercise of official authority were excepted from the application of the Chapter on the right of establishment.

The Court of Justice held that the ‘official authority’ exception to freedom of establishment must be restricted to those of the activities referred to which in themselves involve a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority.

Under German legislation, licences for the provision of legal services were available to patent agents but not to persons who, like Dennemeyer (who was based in the UK), offered only patent renewal services.

The Court of Justice held that [Article 56] not only requires the abolition of discrimination on the ground of nationality but also restrictions that are ‘liable to prohibit or otherwise impede’ the provision of services.

The SPUC challenged the practice of a students’ union in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to supply information, free of charge, about abortion services provided lawfully by London clinics.

The Court of Justice held that since the information was not distributed on behalf of the economic operators (the clinics), the students’ ‘information service’ fell outside the scope of ‘services’. Accordingly, the prohibition of the students’ activity did not infringe EU law.

A Belgian advocate was refused admission to the Paris Bar because he did not hold the necessary French qualifications.

The Court of Justice held that since France officially recognized Thieffry’s Belgian qualifications as equivalent, this was an unjustified restriction on freedom of establishment.

A Dutch national, qualified as an advocate in the Netherlands who was advising a client concerning proceedings in a Dutch court, was informed, on moving to Belgium, that he could no longer represent his client.

The Court of Justice held that requirements imposed on persons providing services are compatible with EU law provided they are equally applicable to host state nationals, objectively justified in the public interest, and proportionate.