1.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that, first, that provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of EEA States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified. Second, that provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that directive.

2.

It is for the referring court to determine whether the measures at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 36 EEA in relation to a recruitment agency, established in one EEA State and providing its services to temporary work agencies established in another EEA State, and in relation to those temporary work agencies receiving its services, or whether any restrictive effects are too uncertain and indirect.

3.

It is for the referring court to determine whether the measures at issue in the main proceedings are indirectly discriminatory by being intrinsically liable to affect workers who are nationals of other EEA States more than workers of Norwegian nationality. Should that be the case, the measures at issue constitute a restriction on Article 28 EEA, which would need to be justified in order to be compatible with that article.

4.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where the activities of a temporary work agency, which is the subsidiary of a parent undertaking established in another EEA State, are subject to restrictions under national legislation, there is a restriction of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 31 EEA.

5.

A restriction of Article 31 EEA in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings may, in principle, be justified by overriding reasons of general interest relating in particular to the protection of temporary agency workers, the requirements of health and safety at work or the need to ensure that the labour market functions properly and abuses are prevented. It is for the referring court to identify the objectives actually pursued by the measures at issue in the main proceedings.

6.

It is for the referring court to determine whether the measures at issue in the main proceedings comply with the principle of proportionality under EEA law. First, the referring court must examine whether those measures are suitable for ensuring, in a consistent and systematic manner, the attainment of the objectives pursued. Second, the referring court must determine whether the measures at issue go beyond what is necessary to attain the legitimate objectives pursued and whether they are capable of being replaced by alternative measures that are equally useful but less restrictive of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EEA Agreement.