Freedom of Movement Cases Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality 1.

. Access to Austrian Universities (2005) F: Austrian law required applicants from other MS's to Austrian Uni's to prove that they were entitled to study the same course in that MS in order to be admitted to an Austrian Uni. Q: is the right to equal treatment laid down by Art 18 TFEU infringed by a clause that makes holders of diplomas awarded in another MS, which are deemed to be equivalent, subject to conditions which are not imposed on Austrian students? YES ?: This requirement is liable to have a greater effect on nls from other MS than on Austrian nls, and therefore in resulted in indirect discrimination. 2. Bressol (2010) F: Belgium limited the number of non-resident students eligible for enrollment of medical courses Q: Can such discrimination on grounds of nationality be justified by the objective of maintaining a balanced high quality medical service open to all? YES ?: Court has to establish--> (1) genuine risks to public health, (2) legislation appropriate for attaining the objective, (3) objective could not be attained by less restrictive measures. European Citizenship 3. Baumbast (2002) F: Baumbast (German) resided in UK and was granted residence permit for 5 years in 1990. He enjoyed comprehensive health coverage in Germany, was self-employed for a while, and later worked for a German company in China. In 1996, the UK wouldn't give him a new residence permit arguing that he wasn't a worker, nor did he have a right of residence. Q: Does an EU citizen who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Art 21(1) TFEU? YES ?: Art 21(1) is directly effective. However, is subject to limitations and conditions referred to in that provision; host MS may f.e. Require full insurance and sufficient resources so he doesn't become an unreasonable burden on public finances. 4.Collins (2004) F: US born and had US and Irish citizenship. Worked 10 months in UK between '78 and '81. Returned to UK in '98 and claimed a jobseeker's allowance. Was refused on grounds that he couldn't be considered as habitually resident in the UK. Q: Is a person allowed to a jobseeker's allowance even though he has been out of the MS for 17 years? NO (Collins) ?: No link can be established between job-search and hs habitual work in the UK 17 years earlier. Therefore, he should be regarded as someone who is looking for his first job in another MS, so not covered by the right to residence for the first three months. Court found it legitimate to grant jobseekers allowance only after a genuine link had been show between the person seeking work and the employment market of that state. 5. Zhu and Chen (2004) F: Chen (Chinese) gave birth in Northern Ireland an consequently her child was constitutionally an Irish national (not British though). Chen moved to Cardiff (Wales) and applied for a long-term residence permit. She had enough financial means to support herself. Q: Is a child, who is a national of a MS, and her mother, a TCN, entitled to a residence permit? YES ?: A young minor who is a national of a MS has a right to reside for an indefinite period in that State. If they have appropriate insurances and such not to become a financial burden on the state, the parent who is a TCN is allowed to reside with the child in the MS as primary carer.

Entitlement to social advantages 6. Sala (1998) F: Spanish national living in Germany, partly without a residence permit. Gave birth in '93 and applied for child-raising allowance. Application refused by German authorities because she wasn't a national, nor did she have a residence permit or a residence entitlement. Q:- Does a benefit such as a child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, fall within the scope of Union Law as a social advantage? YES - Can a MS require nationals from other MS to produce a formal residence permit which nationals of that MS do not need- in order to receive a child-raising allowance? NO ?: Union law precludes a MS to require nls of other MS's authorized to reside in its territory to produce a formal residence permit issued by national authorities in order to receive a child-raising allowance, whereas that MS's own nls are only required to be permanently or ordinarily resident in that MS. 7. Bidar (2005) F: French national enter UK to live with grandmother because mother received medical treatment there. Completed secondary education in UK, started studying in London and received financial support for tuition fees, but not in the form of a student loan (to cover maintenance costs) on the ground that he was not settled in the UK. Q: -Does assistance provided to students lawfully resident in the host MS, whether in the form of subsidized loans or grants, fall within the scope of the application of the Treaty for the purposes of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Art 18 TFEU? YES - What are the criteria that a national court must apply to determine whether the conditions of granting assistance to cover the maintenance costs of students are based on objective considerations regardless of nationality? ?: National legislation granting students the right to loans only if they are settled, while precluding the nls of another MS of receiving that status of settled person, is in conflict with Article 18 TFEU if the nls is lawfully resident and has established a genuine link with the society of that MS. It is, however, a legitimate aim that an applicant for assistance needs to demonstrate a certain degree of integration into the society of that MS. 8. Forster (2008) F: German national in Holland, enrolled for training to become primary school teacher and finished in 2004. Until June 2003 she was to be treated equally to students of Dutch nationality regarding social advantages because she held a job. Therefore, she received a maintenance grant from Holland, but in June when she ceased to be a 'worker' that right was abolished because under Dutch law, non-workers only gain the right to a grant after 5 years of residence. She was therefore ordered to pay back the money she had received in the last half of 2003. Q: C: Is a MS allowed to give a maintenance grant to an individual only after 5 years of residence in the country? YES ?: The objective of the 5-year rule is to limit the grant to students who have integrated to a certain degree into society, this rule is not disproportional and therefore okay. Rights of family members under Residence directive 9. Metock and Others (2008) F: Metock and three other TCN's arrived in Ireland an claimed asylum. After their marriage to Union citizens in Ireland, they applied for residence permits as family members of citizens. They were rejected, because they were TCN's and could not demonstrate prior lawful residence within the Union which was necessary under Irish law to enjoy rights derived from Community law. Q: Doest he Residence Directive permit MS to require a prior lawful residence requirement?NO ?: The Residence directive does not itself require prior lawful residence, it applies to all family

members who accompany or join their Union citizen spouse. 10. Zambrano (2011) F: Zambrano and his wife (TCN's) stayed in Belgium even though they were denied refugee status. While waiting for a decision on their residence status, Mrs Zambrano gave birth to two children who acquired Belgian nationality. Husband got a job -without permit- and paid taxes, etc. Later, when he applied for unemployment benefits, he was refused because he was not entitled to work in Belgium. He and his wife lodged an application to take up residence in Belgium as ascendants of a Belgian national. This was rejected. Q: Is European law applicable in the present case, even though Zambrano's children have never exercised their right of free movement within the territory of the Union?YES ?: European Union law precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union. Free movement of workers 11. Hoekstra (1964) Q: C: Does the concept of a 'worker' have a supranational meaning, one that is not defined by the legislation of each MS? YES ?: the concept of 'worker' in Art 45 TFEU has a Union meaning and should not be interpreted independently by the MS. 12. Levin (1982) F: A British citizen (Levin), was married to TCN. Applied for residence permit in Netherlands, but was refused because she was not engaged in a gainful occupation. She said that she had a part-time job. But state argued that her occupation wasn't covered by concept of worker cause she doesn't even earn minimum wage. Q: Is the concept of 'worker' in Article 45 TFEU applicable to part-time jobs that do not even pay minimum wage? YES ?: Concept of worker includes part-time jobs. But only effective and genuine activities are covered, with the exclusion of activities on such a small scale that they are purely marginal and ancillary. 13. Antonissen (1991) F: British law allowed deportation of individuals after 6 months of unemployment. Antonissen (Belgian) lived in the UK since 1984 and remained unemployed until he was arrested in 1987 for coca. C: Can national legislation limit the length of stay for job seekers? YES (Antonissen) ?: Its not contrary to Union law to require that a nls from another MS has to leave if he hasn't found employment after 6 months, unless he proves that he is continuing to seek employment and has genuine chances of being engaged. 14. Clean Car (1998) F: The BV was denied registration necessary for trading in Austria because its manager did not reside in Austria as the law stipulated. C: Does Art 45 TFEU also grant the right to an employer to hire a non-national? YES (Clean Car) ?: the right of workers to be engaged and employed without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the employer's entitlement to engage them. 15. Moser (1984) F: Germany didn't allow German national (moser) to take training necessary to become a teacher because he was member of the Communist party. Moser argued under provisions of free movement of workers that, in the future, he could not apply for teaching jobs in other MS without his German

education. Q:Can a plaintiff argue against his home country, relying on EU law provisions on free movement of workers, that the MS's denial may in the future derive him of the possibility to work in another MS? NO ?: The free movement of workers can not be applied to situations that are completely internal to a MS. 16. Morson and Jhanjan (1982) F: Two mothers from Surinam wanted to live in Netherlands where their Dutch kids lived. They were not entitled to under Dutch law and tried to rely on EU law. Q: Can a MS refuse to allow relatives of their own nationals who also work in this MS to enter and reside in their territory? YES ?: Provisions on free movement of workers can only be invoked where Union law applies. Because right of freedom of movement was not exercised, the matter was internal. Restrictions to FMW 17. Bonsignore (1975) F: Italian national living in Germany negligently killed his brother with illegal firearm. Germany wanted to deport him, justified by general preventive reasons to deter other immigrants from criminal actions. He appealed. Q: Can a MS deport another MS nls after a conviction for the purpose of deterring other foreing nls from similar offenses? NO ( ?: Deportations may only be made for breaches of the peace and public security which might be committed by the individual affected. 18. Van Duijn (1974) F: Duth citizen wanted to take up work as secretary for church of Scientology in UK. UK considered organization harmful and prohibited non-nationals to work for it. Therefore, he was denied access to the UK. EU law included that denying access on public policy had to be based on the personal conduct of the individuals and not on general considerations. Q: -Can an Individual rely directly on the provision that restrictions to FMW on the ground of public policy must be exclusively based on personal conduct? YES (Van Duijn) - Can the membership in an organization which is considered contrary to the public good, but is not prohibited, be taken into account as a matter of personal conduct? YES (Van Duijn) ?: Reasons for invoking public policy may vary between countries and time periods. Membership of an organization may be taken into account to assess personal conduct. 19. Commsision v. Belgium (1982) F: Some job offers made by Belgium (national railway, city of Brussels, etc) required Belgian nationality. Commission brought action. Q: Can nationals from another MS be generally excluded from all areas connected to the state? NO ?: Art 45(4) TFEU only applies to those fields of public service which are entrusted with the exercise of powers conferred by public law and with responsibility for safeguarding the general interests of the state. 20. Lawrie-Blum (1986) F: British national finished her studies at German university and applied for post-university training to become a teacher. Was refused on grounds of nationality on the basis that a teacher's work contributes towards safeguarding the general interest of the state. Q: Is the job of a trainee teacher covered by the exception of 45(4) TFEU? NO (Lawrie-Blum) ?: Trainee teacher must be regarded as a worker in the meaning of Art 45 TFEU, as he or she performs work for renumeration.

Overriding requirements of the general interest (applicable to measures that apply indistinctly to nls and non-nls) 21. Bosman (1995) F: Was a Belgian football player under contract in Belgium. He was put on the transfer list and a French club wanted to buy him. However, they would have to pay a very high compensation fee for training according to the rules of the football-association. Q: Does Article 45 TFEU preclude the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a nls of on MS may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another MS unless the latter club has paid to the former a transfer, training or development fee? YES Q: Can the measure be justified on the ground of overriding requirements of the general interest? In principle YES, in this case NO ?: Provisions which preclude or deter a nls of a MS from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise the right to FM constitutes an obstacle to that freedom even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned. Regulation 1612/68 22. Groener (1989) F: Dutch wanted to work as arts teacher in Ireland. Had to pass an Irish language test but failed. Started proceedings claiming that it was contrary to 45 TFEU and 1612/68. Q: Can the requirement for a teacher to know the Irish language be justified, although such knowledge is not required to fulfill the duties attached to the job?YES ?: MS are allowed to adopt measures to promote the national language. Because teachers also play a role in the daily life of the school and the students, knowledge of the language is a natural requirement for the post. 23. Ugliola (1969) F: A worker who interrupts employment for military service and later resumes that work is entitled to have the time spent in the military taken into account when calculating his seniority in Germany. However, law only applied to German nationals. Q: Can a MS legislate that a provision taking into account time spent in the military for calculating seniority only apply to own nls? NO ?: Falls within the conditions of work and employment, thus within the equal treatment of migrant workers under Regulation 1612/68. Therefore, should be equally applied to nls and EU migrant workers. 24. Schonig-Kougebetopoulou (1998) F: Was a doctor in Hamburg (originally from Greece). German CAO (called BAT) held that doctors will be promoted after 8 years of practices. She had served 8 years as doctor in Greece, but that was not included in the calculation of her seniority in Germany. Germany argued that all work not performed under BAT was excluded from count of seniority. Therefore, the clause was not discriminatory. Q: Does Union Law preclude a clause that does not take into account the time spent in a similar employment in another MS? YES ?: The BAT applies to a large number of doctors in Germany, not only Hamburg (Schonig's city). Therefore, even though the rule is worded neutrally, it nevertheless privileges Germans over nonGermans because the privilege is based upon something that non-Germans almost never have (indirect discrimination). 25. Inzirillo (1976) F: Italian national was employed in France. His handicapped adult son residing with him was

denied an allowance for handicapped adults. Q: Does national legislation granting an allowance for handicapped adults also apply to an EU national handicapped adult who has never worked in this state but is dependent on his working father? YES ?: If the son is not protected, the migrant worker would be induced not to remain in this MS, which would be contrary to the objectives of the FMW. The provisions of Regulation 1612/68 must be defined in such a way as to include every social and tax advantage, whether or not linked to a contract of employment. 26. Ministere Public (1979) F: French worker received an early retirement pension in Belgium. Every year of retirement before 65, 5% less was paid out except for WW2 veterans. He had served in the French army and was recipient of French invalidity pension. Q: Is this benefit a social advantage in the meaning of Art 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68? NO ?: Social advantages are generally granted to workers primarily because of their status as workers or residents. The aim of the Regulation is to facilitate worker mobility. The aim of the national legislation is to give nls a social benefit because of the hardships suffered for the country. Its not primarily granted because of the status of worker or resident. 27. Bachmann (1992) F: German working in Belgium. Contributions to sickness insurances are deductible from income in Belgium. Bachmann paid them in Germany, which he wasn't allowed to deduct from his occupational income in Belgium. Q: - Is this provision contrary to Art 45 TFEU? YES - Is this justified on any ground? YES ?: Its justified because of the need to safeguard the tax system. .. 28. Schumacker (1995) F: Belgian national living in Belgium and working in Germany. His wages were subject to German income tax but he could not receive certain benefits because he was not a resident taxpayer. Q: - Is this provision contrary to Art 45 TFEU? YES - Is this justified on any ground? NO ?: Discrimination arises because his personal life and family situation are not taken into account in the state of residence nor in the state of employment. There is no objective difference between him and a German resident engaged in germany, so the discrimination is not justified. 29. ASTI (1991) F: The Chambre is a representative body of private workers of compulsory membership in Luxembourg. Members of ASI refused to pay contributions to the Chambre because under Luxermbourg law only nationals may elect representatives of the Chambre. C: Does Article 8 of Regulation 1612/68 preclude national legislation refusing foreign workers to elect representatives in a representative organization to which they are compulsory member and must pay contributions? YES ?: Art 8 does not only cover trade unions, but also other entities that carry out similar functions as regards the defence and representation of workers' interest. 30. Lair (1988) F: French national had been employer on numerous part-time contracts in Germany and started full time studies there. She was then refused a maintenance and training grant because she had not worked continuously for 5 years. Q: - Is a maintenance and training grant a 'social advantage' in the meaning of Art 7(2)? YES - Is a person who first works in a host MS and then undertakes University studies to be regarded as

a 'worker' and as such entitled to the benefit of Art 7(2) of Reg 1612/68? YES - Can the host State fix a minimum period of prior occupational activity as a condition for granting the same social advantages as for nationals of that MS? NO Other direction taken in 31. Grzelczyk (2001) F: French national studying in Belgium. Applied for non-contributory student benefit on grounds of poverty. He was refused because it was only available to workers from other MS in accordance with Reg. 1612/68, but not to students. Q: Are students from other MS treated less favourable than Belgian students who qualify automatically for the non-contributory benefit? YES ?: ECJ relied on concept of Union citizenship. Art 18 and 20 TFEU preclude entitlement to noncontributory social benefit being conditional upon their falling within the scope of Reg 1612/68 when no such conditions apply to nationals. Thus, contrary to EU law. 32. Gravier (1985) F: French national studied at an arts college in Belgium. Non-Belgian students had to pay an extra registration fee. Q: Do EU nationals fall within the scope of 18 TFEU if they enter the territory of another MS for the sole purpose of studying at an institution offering vocational trianing? YES 33. Blaizot (1988) F: A French national studied veterinary medicine in Belgium. After Gravier Belgian law stated that supplementary enrollment fees of non-Belgian students paid before Gravier were non-refundable except for court proceedings brought before the day of the judgment. Blaizot claimed refunds. Q: Do studies in Veterinary medicine fall within the scope of the term 'vocational training'? ?: University studies fulfill the requirements to be regarded as vocational training as long as its designed to prepare them for a particular occupation. Therefore, a supplementary fee constitutes a discrimination in the meaning of Art 18 TFEU. 34 Brown (1988) F: French and British national, worked in Scotland as trainee electrical engineer. Following his traineeship, he started full time studies in electrical engineering at Cambridge. He was refused student's allowance by the Scottish education department. He claimed to be entitled to allowance under union law--> 7(2), (3) and 12 of 1612/68. Q: Is a course of full-time study a training in a 'vocational school' referred to in article 7(3) of Regulation? NO ?: Although Brown can be considered entitled to social advantages within art 7, he is not entitled to students allowance as he had acquired the status of worker exclusively because of his admission to university because the employment is merely ancillary. 35. Di Leo (1990) F: Di Leo was the daughter of an Italian worker who had lived in Germany for many years. She had received her primary and secondary education in Germany, but she was refused a study grant because she was pursuing a course in medicine in Italy. Q: Does EU law preclude a MS from refusing a study grant to the child of a EU worker studying abroad? YES ?: The ECJ saw it as a violation of art 12 of 1612/68 because if she had been a German national, she would have been entitled to a grant to study abroad.

Right of Establishment 36.Gebhard (1995) F: Was a German lawyer who worked and lived in Italy. An Italian law allowed the temporary activity of foreign lawyers (provision of services) but prohibited the opening of an office. After working at Italian law firms, Gebhard opened his own chambers. The applied to enter the roll of members of the bar, bus was rejected and suspended for 6 months by Milan Bar Council. Gebhard appealed. Q: Can Mr Gebhard work in Italy as a lawyer and open his own office? YES ?: The provision of services (57(3) TFEU) is to be determined in the light of its duration, regularity, periodicity and continuity. A national of a MS who pursues a professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in another MS where he holds himself out as an established professional to, amongst others, nationals of that state, comes under the provisions of the right to establishment and not services. The possibility to exercise this right of establishment should be determined in the light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the territory of the host MS. When the host MS does not have any rules regarding the activities; he can just establish himself and pursue the activity there. When the host MS does have certain conditions to exercise the activities, he should comply with those conditions. However, national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment must fulfill the following conditions: 1. it is applied in a non-discriminatory manner 2. it is justified by imperative requirements in the general interest 3. it is suitable for maintaining the objective pursued 4. it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective. And MS must take into account the equivalence of diplomas and, if necessary, compare the knowledge and qualifications required by national rules and the person concerned. 37. Reyners (1974) F: Dutch national had passed all necessary exams and other requirements to become lawyer in Belgium. However, according to Belgian law only belgian nationals could be lawyers, so his application to the bar was turned down. Q: Can an individual directly rely upon art 49 TFEU? YES ?: 49 has direct effect. Right to establish a branch office 38. Klopp (1984) F: German lawyer and member of Dusseldorf Bar. Applied for Paris bar, but was rejected cause a French lawyer could only belong to one local Bar. Q: Can French legislation hinder mr Klopp from working in France on the ground that he is already established in another MS and no Directive on the RTE of lawyers has been passed? NO ?: The right to set up branches in other MS includes the right for a lawyer to set up more than one place of work in the meaning of Art 49. The lack of secondary (promised by primary) legislation does not hinder the RTE. Recognition of qualitifcations 39. Thieffry (1977) F: Had Belgian law degree which was recognized as equivalent by the Uni of Paris. He was, however, rejected for Paris bar because he did not have French law degree. Q: Does this infringe art 49 TFEU? YES ?: The refusal constitutes indirect discrimination prohibited by Art 49. 40. Patrick (1977) F: Was British architect applying for authorization to work in France. French law stated that, in case there is no convention of reciprocity, by exception authorization may be awarded by ministerial

degree. His request was denied because there was no convention with UK and art 49 TFEU did not substitute such a convention because the directives promised weren't in force yet. Q: Must a person holding a qualification recognized in the MS of establishment as equivalent to the certificate required in that state be admitted under the same conditions as nationals without being required to satisfy any additional conditions? YES ?: Even in absence of a directive, a person holding qualifications recognized by another MS enjoys the right to be admitted to the profession and practice it under the same conditions as national of the MS. 41. Heylens (1987) F: Belgian national holding football trainer's license couldn't get equivalence of diploma in France and wasn't given reasons for rejection. He started working as trainer nonetheless and was summoned before criminal court. Q: Does it constitute a restriction on the FMW if a trainer needs a French diploma or a recognition by a committee which is not required to state reasons nor offers a legal remedy? YES ?: France needs to assess objectively the qualification held by nls of another MS, exclusively in the light of the level of knowledge which its holder can be assumed to possess in the light of that diploma. 42. Vlassopoulou (1991) F: Greek national holding a Greek law degree. Had practiced German law in Germany for a couple of years but was denied application to the bar because she didn't pass the relevant German examinations. Q: Is RTE infringed in this case, where she is recognized as lawyer in own country, works as legal advisor in Germany for 5 years and worked at a law firm in Germany as well, but can only be admitted as lawyer in accordance with statutory rules of Germany? YES ?: MS authorities have to take in account persons qualifications in another MS and compare those to qualifications required by national authorities. If those diplomas correspond only partially, national authorities are entitled to require the person to prove that he was acquired the knowledge which is lacking. THUS, establishing a principle of mutual recognition. Right to Establishment of Companies 43. Commission v. France (1986) F: Insurance companies in France were entitled to tax benefit, which was not granted to branches or agencies of foreign companies. Commission started action. ?: Law makes a difference between different kinds of establishment; this is discriminatory because it is not justified by objective reasons. 44. Daily Mail (1988) F: British tax legislation provides that only companies which are resident for tax purposes are liable to UK corporation tax. 'Resident for tax purposes' is the place where the central management and control is located. If a company is that, and wants to move its management to another country but remain a company in the UK, it needs permission from the Treasury to move. The Daily Mail, wanted move central management to the Netherlands but remain company in the UK. They opened a management office in the Netherlands without waiting for consent from the Treasury. Q: Do arts 49 and 54 TFEU give a company incorporated under the legislation of one MS and having its registered office there- the right to transfer its central management and control to another MS without a prior consent? NO ?: Companies are creatures of national law; they exist by virtue of varying national legislation. Art. 49 TFEU does not grant a company the right to change its primary establishment from one MS to another.

45. Centros (1999) F: Centros was a private limited company registered in the UK, but it did not do business in the UK. The two shareholders were Danish nationals, who planned to do business with Centros in Denmark. The minimum share capital necessary for a company in the UK is much lower than in Denmark, and the minimum share capital necessary in Denmark to establish a branch in Denmark was much lower than the what's necessary to register the principle office. The Danish government refused Centros a subsidiary organ because they saw it as a fraudulent scheme to avoid Danish laws. Q: Is it contrary to Arts 49 and 54 TFEU for a MS to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance with the law of another MS for the above-mentioned reasons? YES ?: The fact that a company does not conduct any business in the MS where it is registered itself does not prove fraudulent conduct which entitles the host MS to disregard Union law regarding to RTE. The refusal to register the branch is an obstacle to the exercise of the RTE. 46. Uberseering F: Uberseering was company incorporated under Dutch law and had transferred its actual centre of administration to Germany. According to German law, a company's legal capacity is determined by reference to the law applicable in the place where its actual centre of administration is established. Uberseering brought an action to a business partner in a German court, but the Court said that German court lacked legal capacity. Uberseering would have to reincorporate in Germany in order to be able to sue. Q: Do arts 49 and 54 TFEU preclude a MS from denying legal capacity to a company, which has its registered office in another MS and which has moved its actual centre of administration to its territory? YES ?: Denying Uberseering legal capacity is equal to denial of RTE. 47. Inspire Art (2003) F: Inspire Art (British) established a branch in Holland to circumvent Dutch company law. The authorities ordered that a statement should be added to the commercial register that the company is a 'formally foreign company.' This entailed specific obligations laid down by law. Q: Is it contrary to Arts 49 and 53 TFEU for national legislation to impose on the exercise of RTE in that state by a company formed in accordance with the law of another MS certain conditions provided for in domestic company law in respect of company formation relating to minimum capital and directors' liability? YES ?: Even though the company was formed in the UK to circumvent Dutch company law, the establishment of a branch in Holland is still covered by arts 49 and 54 TFEU. The existence of an abuse needs to be established on a case-by-case basis.