This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0577
Case C-577/10: Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Case C-577/10: Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Case C-577/10: Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.3.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 72/7 |
Action brought on 10 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-577/10)
2011/C 72/10
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare that by adopting Articles 137(8), third indent of 138, 153 and 157(3) of Framework Law (I) of 27 December 2006 (1), in the version in force since 1 April 2007, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
|
— |
order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this action, the Commission claims that the national legislation which imposes a prior notification requirement on independent service providers established in other Member States (the ‘Limosa’ declaration), who wish to provide services in Belgium on a temporary basis, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.
The Commission points out, in the first place, that the provisions at issue constitute a discriminatory restriction insofar as, firstly, they impose non-negligible and deterrent additional administrative formalities on the independent service providers at issue and, secondly, they establish a monitoring system that applies only to providers established in another Member State, without any objective reasons to justify that difference in treatment.
In the second place, the applicant asserts that that restriction on the freedom to provide services, even if it is not discriminatory, is not justified by objectives in relation to the public interest, the maintenance of the financial balance of the social security system, the prevention of fraud or the protection of workers.
(1) Moniteur Belge, 28 December 2006, p. 75178.