Identified should be:

● The parties of the case

● The subject of the case

● The structure of Free Movement cases:

-Element of EU law

-Does the case fall under EU free movement law?

-Which free movement rights are restricted?

-Is the restriction distinctive or indistinctive / discriminatory or non-discriminatory?

-Is the restriction justified? (Under treaty-based / under case law based derogations?)

-Is the restriction necessary in a democratic society?

-Is the restriction proportionate?

● What did the ECJ decide?

 

Please note:

In paragraphs 12-17 of the judgment, the ECJ talks about certain justifications of restrictions to free movement of services. Please, try to identify those justifications /derogations:

12. However, taking into account the particular nature of the services to be provided, specific requirements imposed on the person providing the service cannot be considered incompatible with the Treaty where they have as their purpose the application of professional rules justified by the general good - in particular rules relating to organization, qualifications, professional ethics, supervision and liability - which are binding upon any person established in the State in which the service is provided, where the person providing the service would escape from the ambit of those rules being established in another Member State.

13. Likewise, a Member State cannot be denied the right to take measures to prevent the exercise by a person providing services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory of the freedom guaranteed by Article 59 for the purpose of avoiding the professional rules of conduct which would be applicable to him if he were established within that state; such a situation may be subject to judicial control under the provisions of the Chapter relating to the right of establishment and not of that on the provision of services.

14. In accordance with these principles, the requirement that persons whose functions are to assist the administration of justice must be permanently established for professional purposes within the jurisdiction of certain courts or tribunals cannot be considered incompatible with the provisions of Articles 59 and 60, where such requirement is objectively justified by the need to ensure observance of professional rules of conduct connected, in particular, with the administration of justice and with respect for professional ethics.

15. That cannot, however, be the case when the provision of certain services in a Member State is not subject to any sort of qualification or professional regulation and when the requirement of habitual residence is fixed by reference to the territory of the State in question.

16. In relation to a professional activity the exercise of which is similarly unrestricted within the territory of a particular Member State, the requirement of residence within that state constitutes a restriction which is incompatible with Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty if the administration of justice can satisfactorily be ensured by measures which are less restrictive, such as the choosing of an address for service.

17. It must therefore be stated in reply to the question put to the Court that the first paragraph of Article 59 and the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the national law of a Member State cannot, by imposing a requirement as to habitual residence within that State, deny persons established in another Member State the right to provide services, where the provision of services is not subject to any special condition under the national law applicable.

These statements by the ECJ in the nutshell contain justification of restrictions by the "general good" that go under public interest requirements.