Pravo na osnovawe i slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi

1. Pravo na osnovawe i slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi Sa{o Georgievski April 2011

2. Odnos pome|u pravoto na osnovawe i slobodata na vr{ewe na uslugi i drugite slobodi na pazarot na EU • Odnos pome|u pravoto na osnovawe i slobodnoto dvi`ewe na rabotnici i lica: • Vo princip, i vo obata slu~ai se raboti za obezbeduvawe na ednakov tretman na lica naseleni na teritorija na druga dr`ava; • razlika: status “rabotnik” i status na “samo-vraboteno” lice: “za razlika od “rabotnicite”, “samovraboteniot raboti nadvor od odnos na subordinacija, toj samiot go podnesuva rizikot od uspehot na rabotata i e platen direktno i vo celost” (Slu~ajot Jany [2001]; • podednakva primenlivost na Direktivata za 2004/38 za dvi`ewe i prestoj na gra|anite na EU; • pravoto na osnovawe se odnesuva i na pravni lica; • Odnos pome|u slobodata na vr{ewe na uslugi i slobodnoto dvi`ewe na rabotnici i lica: • rabotnici “isprateni” na rabota vo druga dr`ava zaradi vr{ewe na uslugi - ne go u`ivaat pravoto na “rabotnikot” na pristap do vrabotuvawe vo dr`avata vo koja se isprateni dokolku se vratile vo zemjata na poteklo po izvr{uvaweto na rabotata (Slu~ajot Finalarte [2001]; • Odnos pome|u slobodata na vr{ewe na uslugi i slobodnoto dvi`ewe na proizvodi: primer reklamni uslugi;

3. Odnos pome|u pravoto na osnovawe i slobodata na vr{ewe na uslugi • Odnos pome|u pravoto na osnovawe i slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi - Slu~ajot Gebhard [1995[: • pravoto na osnovawe e povrzano so trajno vr{ewe na dejnost (uslugi) preku fiksen entitet osnovan vo dr`avata-~lenka - “liceto u~estvuva vrs stabilna i kontinuirana osnova vo ekonomskiot `ivot na edna zemja-~lenka”; • slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi e povrzano so privremeno vr{ewe na dejnost (usluga) preku entitet nastanet vo druga dr`ava-~lenka; • privremenosta na dejnosta se ocenuva od aspekt na “redovnosta, periodi~nosta ili kontinutetot” vo vr{eweto na dejnosta - nezavisno od toa dali vr{itelot nekakov vid na infrastruktura (kancelarija, prostorii i sl.) vo drugata dr`ava-~lenka; • Vertikalen i horizontalen direkten efekt na odredbite za osnovawe i slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi

4. Pravo na osnovawe: Article 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State. Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the Chapter relating to capital. Article 54 (ex Article 48 TEC) Companies or firmsformed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States. ‘Companies or firms’ means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making.

5. Slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi: Article 56 (ex Article 49 TEC) Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may extend the provisions of the Chapter to nationals of a third country who provide services and who are established within the Union. Article 57 (ex Article 50 TEC) Services shall be considered to be ‘services’ within the meaning of the Treaties where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons. (..) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the Member State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.

6. Odredbi zaedni~ki za pravoto na osnovawe i slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi: Article 51 (ex Article 45 TEC) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may rule that the provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain activities. Article 52 (ex Article 46 TEC) 1. The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. 2. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, issue directives for the coordination of the abovementioned provisions.

7. Odredbi zaedni~ki za pravoto na osnovawe i slobodno vr{ewe na uslugi: • Article 53 (ex Article 47 TEC) • 1. In order to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, the European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, issue directives for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and for the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as selfemployed persons. • (..) • Sekundarno zakonodavstvo: • Direktivata 2005/36 za priznavawe na profesionalnite kvalifikacii; • Sektorski Direktivi: Direktivite za advokati, transport, osiguritelni agenti itn. • Direktivata 2006/113 za uslugi vo vnatre{niot Pazar

8. Isklu~okot na dejnosti povrzani so vr{ewe na “oficijalna vlast” (official authority): ~len 51 DFEU (eks 45 DEZ) • Slu~ajot Reyners v. Belgium (1974)(holandski dr`avjanin so pravno obrazovanie steknato vo Belgija - odbien da bide registriran vo belgiskata advokatska komora): • isklu~uvawe na edna cela profesija od primenata na ~lenot 49 DFEU (eks 43 DEZ) ne e mo`no dokolku mo`e da se izdvoi konkretnata profesijalna aktivnost povrzana so vr{eweto na oficijalnata vlast; • funkcijata advokat ne povrzana so (diskrecionite funkcii na) vr{ewe na sudskata vlast;

9. Pravo na osnovawe (~len 49 DFEU; eks 43 DEZ) • Stav 1: zabrana za ograni~uvawe na slobodata na prvostepeno i vtorostepeno osnovawe (pretstavni{tva, podru`nici ili podredeni lica (agencies, branches or subsidiarities)); • Stav 2: pravo na vr{ewe na dejnosti kako samovraboteni lica ili preku pretprijatija pod isti uslovi kako i doma{nite dr`avjani; • Otsustvoto na harmonizira~ka direktiva ne mo`e da go spre~i direktnoto dejstvo na ~lenot 49; priznavawe na diplomi/kvalifikacii: • Slu~ajot Thiefry [1977] (neopravdano odbivawe za priem na obuka za advokat od francuskata advokatska komora na belgiski pravnik so priznaeni kvalifikacii vo Francija); • Slu~ajot Heylens [1987] (odbieno baraweto na belgiski fudbalski trener za priznavawe na belgiskata diploma vo Francija): - postapkata za priznavawe na ekvivalentna diploma mora da se zasnovuva vrz “objektivna osnova” – vrz “znaeweto i kvalifikaciite” (..) so ogled na “prirodata i vremetraeweto na studiite i zavr{enata prakti~na obuka” ;

10. Pravo na osnovawe (~len 49 DFEU; eks 43 DEZ): priznavawe na diplomi/kvalifikacii vo otsustvo na harmonizira~ko zakonodavstvo • Slu~ajot Vlassopoulou [1991]: (odbiena registracija kako advokat vo Germanija na gr~ka dr`avjanka – pravnik, {to rabotela nekolku godini vo Germanija): princip na “vzaemno priznavawe” – razli~en od principot na “zemjata na poteklo” “Nacionalite vlasti moraat da go zemat pred vid sekoe obrazovanie i obuka so koi{to se zdobil nositelot na diplomata i uverenieto i mora da gi sporedat steknatoto znaewe i ve{tinite so onie koi se potrebni spored doma{nata kvalifikacija. Dokolku se utvrdi deka se ekvivalentni, dr`avata mora da gi priznae kvalifikaciite, a dokolku se utvrdi deka ne se, dr`avata mora da proceni dali nekakvo znaewe ili prakti~na obuka so koi{to liceto mo`ebi se zdobilo vo zemjata-~lenka doma}in e dovolno za da nadomesti za ona {to nedostasuva vo kvalifikaciite“ (tkn. “kompenzacija”)

11. Pravo na osnovawe (~len 49 DFEU; eks 43 DEZ): nerazlo`no primenlivi merki; • Slu~ajotGebhard [1995] (germanski advokat kaznet za vr{ewe na uslugi vo Italija pod titulaavvocato): “° where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject to any rules in the host State, a national of any other Member State will be entitled to establish himself on the territory of the first State and pursue that activity there. On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the host Member State, a national of another Member State intending to pursue that activity must in principle comply with them; ° however, national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfill four conditions: they must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it; ° likewise, Member States must take account of the equivalence of diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of the knowledge and qualifications required by their national rules and those of the person concerned.

12. Pravo na osnovawe (~len 49 DFEU; eks 43 DEZ): “vnatre{ni situacii” • Priznavawe na kvalifikacii na doma{ni dr`avjani steknati vo druga dr`ava-~lenka: • Slu~ajot Knoors [1979] (odbieno vo Holandija barawe na holandski dr`avjanin za priznavawe na kvalifikacii za vodovodxija steknati vo Belgija, po navoden osnov za izbegnuvawe na zloupotrebi od doma{nite dr`avjani); ESP – faktot {to kvalifikacijata e steknata preku zakonski prestoj na teritorijata na druga zemja-~lenka e dovolen slu~ajot da bide sporedliv so onoj na bilo koi drugi lica koi gi u`ivaat pravata i slobodite garantirani so Dogovorot; • Slu~ajot Asscher [1996] (holandski dr`avjanin – direktor na dve kompanii so prestoj vo Belgija ne bil spre~en da se povika na ~lenot 49 protiv Holandija zaradi povisok danok vo odnos na rezidentite vo Holandija);

13. Pravo na osnovawe (~len 49 DFEU (eks 43 DEZ) i ~len 54 DFEU (eks 48 DEZ): osnovawe kompanii • Kompaniite ili firmi (osven ne-profitnite) osnovani i so registrano sedi{te, centrala ili osnovno mesto na rabotewe vo dr`ava-~lenka gi u`ivaat istite prava kako i fizi~kite lica; • Slu~ajot Daily Mail [1987]: premestuvaweto na sedi{teto ili osnovnoto mesto na rabotewe vo druga dr`ava-~lenka mo`e da bide predmet na ograni~uvawa vo mati~nata dr`ava zaradi podmiruvawe na dano~nite obvrski i sl.

14. Ograni~uvawe vo dr`avata na sekundarno osnovawe: Slu~ajot Centros [1999] (odbiena vo Danska registracija na podredno dru{tvo od OK osnovano od danski dr`avjani za vr{ewe na osnovnata dejnost) - “otvorena vrata za natprevar me|u nacionalnite prava (..) za da se osiguri kompletiraweto na vnatre{niot Pazar”: “(..) 24. It is true that according to the case-law of the Court a Member State is entitled to take measures designed to prevent (..) individuals from improperly or fraudulently taking advantage of provisions of Community law. (..) 25. However, although, in such circumstances, the national courts may, case by case, take account - on the basis of objective evidence - of abuse or fraudulent conduct (..) they must nevertheless assess such conduct in the light of the objectives pursued by those provisions (..). 26. (..) The provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment are intended specifically to enable companies formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community to pursue activities in other Member States through an agency, branch or subsidiary. 27. That being so, the fact that a national of a Member State who wishes to set up a company chooses to form it in the Member State whose rules of company law seem to him the least restrictive and to set up branches in other Member States cannot, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right of establishment. The right to form a company in accordance with the law of a Member State and to set up branches in other Member States is inherent in the exercise, in a single market, of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. (..)”

15. Ograni~uvawe vo dr`avata na sekundarno osnovawe: Slu~ai po Centros • Slu~ajotUberseering [2002](odbivaweto vo Germanija da se priznae firma registrirana vo Holandija (poseduvana od germanci) koja go prenela centralnoto upravuvawe vo Germanija – zaradi za{tita na doveritelite, pomalite investitori i legitimnite fiskalni uslovi – oceneto kako neproporcionalna); • Slu~ajot Inspire Art [2003] (ograni~uvaweto vo Holandija na kompanija registrirana vo O.K. (preku barawe za minimalen akcionerski kapital, odgovornost na direktorite) – zaradi za{tita na doveritelite, investitorite, osiguruvawe na dano~na inspekcija – oceneto kako nepotrebno i neproporcionaalno); • Izraz na principot na “vzamno priznavawe” na osnovanite kompanii pri ostvaruvawe na pravoto na sekundarno osnovawe;

16. Odano~uvaweto na doma{nite kompanii kako restrikcija na pravoto na sekundarno osnovawe • Slu~ajot Commission v. France [1983] (diskriminacija preku isklu~uvawe na dano~nite prednosti vo Francija pri odano~uvaweto na filijalite ili pretstavni{tata vo druga zemja-~lenka – “slobodata na izborot za vr{ewe na dejnosti vo druga zemja-~lenka ne smee da se ograni~uva so diskriminatorski dano~ni odredbi”); • Dano~nite ograni~uvawa vo odnos na nerezidentnite kompanii ili filijali (na primer, zaradi izbegnuvawe na ostvaruvawe na dvojna korist preku dano~ni olesnuvawa i sl.) se na~elno dopu{teni, no i predmet na rigorozna ocenka na razumnost i proporcionalnost;

17. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi • Slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi go u`ivaat kompaniite osnovani i so sedi{te vo E.U.; kompaniite od 3ti dr`avi moraat da imaat “realna i kontinuirana vrska” so zemja-~lenka na EU; • Reziduelna primena na ~lenot 56 DFEU (eks 49 DEZ) – primenliv edinstveno vo otsustvo na primena na odredbite okolu slobodnoto dvi`ewe na proizvodi, lica ili kapital; • Isklu~eni uslugite vo oblasta na transporot, bankarskite i osiguritelni uslugi; • Sloboda na vr{ewe i primawe na uslugi: Slu~ajot Luisi and Carbone [1984] (ne-dzvoluvaweto da se iznesat sredstva nad dozvoleniot iznos zaradi primawe na turisti~ki uslugi i lekuvawe oceneto kako povreda na slobodnoto dvi`ewe na uslugite);

18. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: vnatre{ni situacii • Slu~ajotDebauve [1979](krivi~nata postapka vo Belgija protiv belgiski kompanii za kabelska televizija zaradi povreda na ograni~uvaweto na reklami – isklu~ena kako ‘vnatre{na situacija” od primenata na ~lenot 56 DFEU (eks 49 DEZ); • Slu~ajot Coditel [1980] (situacija so “odreden me|udr`aven element” bidej}i su{tinata na radiodifuznite uslugi” (emituvaweto na kablovskite programi) poteknuvala od druga zemja-~lenka; • Slu~ajot Deliege [2000] (odbivaweto na belgiska xudistka od belgiskata federacija za u~estvo na xudo-natprevarite oceneto kako ograni~uvawe na slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi – zaradi faktot {to natprevarite se odvivaat i vo drugi zemji-~lenki;

19. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: komercijalen (ekonomski) element na uslugata • Slu~ajot Deliege [2000]: “56. In that connection, it must be stated that sporting activities and, in particular, a high-ranking athlete's participation in an international competition are capable of involving the provision of a number of separate, but closely related, services which may fall within the scope of Article 59 of the Treaty even if some of those services are not paid for by those for whom they are performed 57. For example, an organiser of such a competition may offer athletes an opportunity of engaging in their sporting activity in competition with others and, at the same time, the athletes, by participating in the competition, enable the organiser to put on a sports event which the public may attend, which television broadcasters may retransmit and which may be of interest to advertisers and sponsors. Moreover, the athletes provide their sponsors with publicity the basis for which is the sporting activity itself.”

20. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: komercijalen (ekonomski) element na uslugata • Slu~ajot Belgium v. Humbel [1988] (besplaten kurs vo ramkite na nacionalniot obrazoven sistem ne e ocenet kako “usluga” vo smisla na ~lenot 56 DFEU): “17. The essential characteristic of remuneration thus lies in the fact that it constitutes consideration for the service in question, and is normally agreed upon between the provider and the recipient of the service . 18. That characteristic is, however, absent in the case of courses provided under the national education system. First of all, the State, in establishing and maintaining such a system, is not seeking to engage in gainful activity but is fulfilling its duties towards its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields . Secondly, the system in question is, as a general rule, funded from the public purse and not by pupils or their parents . 19. The nature of the activity is not affected by the fact that pupils or their parents must sometimes pay teaching or enrolment fees in order to make a certain contribution to the operating expenses of the system . A fortiori, the mere fact that foreign pupils alone are required to pay a minerval can have no such effect .”

21. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: komercijalen (ekonomski) element na uslugata – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotGeraets-Smits/Perbooms [2001] (odbieno barawe za refundirawe na sredstva od Holandski plan za socijalno osiguruvawe zaradi plateno le~ewe vo Belgija – uslov le~eweto da bilo “voobi~aeno za profesionalnite krugovi” i da bilo “neophodno”): “58. (..) Article 60 of the Treaty states that it applies to services normally provided for remuneration and it has been held that, for the purposes of that provision, the essential characteristic of remuneration lies in the fact that it constitutes consideration for the service in question (Humbel, paragraph 17). In the present cases, the payments made by the sickness insurance funds under the contractual arrangements provided for by the ZFW, albeit set at a flat rate, are indeed the consideration for the hospital services and unquestionably represent remuneration for the hospital which receives them and which is engaged in an activity of an economic character. 59. Since the provisions of services at issue in the main proceedings do fall within the scope on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty, it is necessary to consider whether the rules at issue in the main proceedings place restrictions on that freedom and, if so, whether those restrictions can be objectively justified.” (..)

22. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: komercijalen (ekonomski) element na uslugata – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotWatts [2006] (odbieno barawe za kompenzacija od britanski Nacionalen fond (finansiran od buxetski sredstva) za plateni medicinski uslugi vo Francija po odbieno odobrenie od Fondot): “91. It must therefore be found that a situation such as that which gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings, in which a person whose state of health necessitates hospital treatment goes to another Member State and there receives the treatment in question for consideration, fallswithin the scope of the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services, there being no need in the present case to determine whether the provision of hospital treatment in the context of a national health service such as the NHS is in itself a service within the meaning of those provisions. (..) 98. It must therefore be found that the system of prior authorisation referred to in paragraph 95 of the present judgment deters, or even prevents, the patients concerned from applying to providers of hospital services established in another Member State and constitutes, both for those patients and for service providers, an obstacle to the freedom to provide services (see to that effect Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 69, and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 44). (..) 101 Since the existence of a restriction on the freedom to provide services has been established, and before ruling on whether an NHS patient is entitled under Article 49 EC to receive hospital medical treatment in another Member State at the expense of the national service concerned without such a restriction, it is necessary to examine whether that restriction can be objectively justified. (..)

23. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: “nemoralni” ili “nelegalni” aktivnosti kako “uslugi”? • S# dodeka nekoja aktivnost e legalna vo nekoi zemji-~lenki, taa e “usluga” vo smisla na ~lenot 56 DFEU, iako mo`e da bide predmet na opravdano, proporcionalno i nediskriminatorsko ograni~uvawe vo drugi zemji-~lenki: • Slu~ajot Grogan [1990] (uslugi na abortus vo bolnici reklamirani od studentsko zdru`enie vo Irska; abortusot zabranet vo Irska); ESP – faktot {to uslugata e zabraneta vo edna zemja-~lenka ne mo`e da spre~i tretman na dejnosta kako “usluga” bidej}i ne e zabraneta vo zemjata od koja {to doa|a); • Slu~ajot Schindler [1992] (zastapnici na germanska lotarija vo OK goneti za prekr{ok spored zakonodavstvoto na OK) – ESP: “Iako moralnosta na lotariite e najmalku somnitelna, Sudot ne e toj {to treba da ja zameni procenkata za legalnost na zemjite-~lenki vo koi aktivnosta e legalna”; • Slu~ajot Jani [1999] (prostitucijata kako samo-vrabotena dejnost e usluga – kako tolerirana vo mnogu zemji-~lenki);

24. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: ograni~uvawe na socijalni prava • Slu~ajot Italian Housing [1988] (odbien na pristap do socijalno domuvawe na stranski dr`avjanin {to privremeno vr{el usluga) – ne mo`e da se prejudicira vremenskiot period na prestoj za vr{ewe na uslugata i mo`nosta da se ispolnat uslovite za nediskriminatorski pristap do socijalnoto domuvawe); • Slu~ajot Cowan [1987] (odbien socijalen nadomestok vo Francija na turist - britanski dr`avjanin – ograben vo francusko metro);

25. Opravduvawe na ograni~uvawata na pravoto na osnovawe i slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi • Primelivost kaj pravoto na osnovawe i na ~lenovite 27-29 na Direktivata 2004/38; • Opravduvawa na nacionalnite nerazlo`no-primenlivi restriktivni merki so ogled na “zadol`itelni barawa” (“neophodni barawa”, “objektivni opravduvawa”) na nacionalnoto zakonodavstvo; • Slu~ajot Van Birsbergen: (odzemeno pravo na zastapuvawe vo Holandija na advokat-holandski dr`avjanin otkoga se preselil vo Belgija) “14. (..) baraweto licata ~ii{to funkcii se da go pomagaat sproveduvaweto na pravdata da mora da profesionalni celi da imaat postojano sedi{te vo ramkite na jurisdikcijata na odredeni sudovi ili tribunali ne mo`e da se smeta za nekompatibilno so odredbite na ~lenovite 59 i 60, koga takvoto barawe e objektivno opravdano so potrebata da se obezbedi po~ituvawe na profesionalnite pravila na odnesuvawe koi{to se povrzani, osobeno, so sproveduvaweto na pravdata i vo odnos na profesionalnata etika.” • Uslov, ograni~uvaweto: • da zadovoluva “legitimen javen interes”; • da se primenuva bez diskriminacija; • da bide proporcionalno; i • da gi po~ituva temelnite (~ovekovi) prava.

26. Opravduvawe na ograni~uvawata na pravoto na osnovawe i slobodnoto vr{ewe na uslugi • Slu~ai na odr`uvawe na dozvoli za rabotnici privremeno isprateni na rabota vo druga dr`ava-~lenka zaradi vr{eweto na uslugata; opravdani ako ne nametnuva dodatni uslovi za rabotnicite vo odnos na onie na mati~nata zemja-~lenka; • Slu~ai na opravduvawa na restrikcii za krostewe na zdravstveni uslovi vo druga zemja-~lenka; • Slu~ajot Geraets-Smits/Perbooms [2001]; • Slu~ajot Watts [2006] • Slu~ai na opravduvawe na nacionalni pravila na odanu~auvawe zaradi spre~uvawe na izmama, izbegnuvawe na danok, efikasen fiskalen nadzor, efikasna naplata na danocite ili od socijalni pri~ini – restriktiven stav na ESP;

27. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: opravduvawe na restriktivni merki - – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotWatts [2006]: (..) 103. The Court has already held that it is possible for the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system to constitute an overriding reason in the generalninterest capable of justifying an obstacle to the freedom to provide services (Kohll, paragraph 41; Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 72; and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 73). 104. The Court has likewise acknowledged that the objective of maintaining a balanced medical and hospital service open to all may also fall within the derogations on grounds of public health under Article 46 EC in so far as it contributes to the attainment of a high level of health protection (Kohll, paragraph 50; Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 73; and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 67). 105 The Court has also held that Article 46 EC permits Member States to restrict the freedom to provide medical and hospital services in so far as the maintenance of treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory is essential for the public health, and even the survival, of the population (Kohll, paragraph 51; Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 74; and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 67). 106 It is therefore necessary to determine whether the restriction at issue can in fact be justified in the light of such overriding reasons, and if such is the case to make sure, in accordance with settled case-law, that it does not exceed what is objectively necessary for that purpose and that the same result cannot be achieved by less restrictive rules (see Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 75, and the case-law cited). (..)

28. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: opravduvawe na restriktivni merki - – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotWatts [2006]: “(..) 113. In the light of the foregoing (..) Community law, in particular Article 49 EC, does not therefore preclude the right of a patient to receive hospital treatment in another Member State at the expense of the system with which he is registered from being subject to prior authorisation. 114. Nevertheless, the conditions attached to the grant of such authorisation must be justified in the light of the overriding considerations mentioned above and must satisfy the requirement of proportionality referred to in paragraph 106 of the present judgment (see to that effect Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 82, and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 83). 115. It is settled case-law that a system of prior authorisation cannot legitimise discretionary decisions taken by the national authorities which are liable to negate the effectiveness of provisions of Community law, in particular those relating to a fundamental freedom such as that at issue in the main proceedings (see Smits and Peerbooms, paragraph 90, and Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraph 84, and the case-law cited in those paragraphs). 116. Thus, in order for a system of prior authorisation to be justified even though it derogates from a fundamental freedom of that kind, it must in any event be based on objective, non discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion, so that it is not used arbitrarily. Such a system must furthermore be based on a procedural system which is easily accessible and capable of ensuring that a request for authorisation will be dealt with objectively and impartially within a reasonable time and refusals to grant authorisation must also be capable of being challenged in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings (..)

29. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: opravduvawe na restriktivni merki - – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotWatts [2006]: “(..) 117. To that end, refusals to grant authorisation, or the advice on which such refusals may be based, must refer to the specific provisions on which they are based and be properly reasoned in accordance with them. Likewise, courts or tribunals hearing actions against such refusals must be able, if they consider it necessary for the purpose of carrying out the review which it is incumbent on them to make, to seek the advice of wholly objective and impartial independent experts (see to that effect Inizan, paragraph 49). 118. In relation to the dispute in the main proceedings, it should be noted, as does the Commission, that the regulations on the NHS do not set out the criteria for the grant or refusal of the prior authorisation necessary for reimbursement of the cost of hospital treatment provided in another Member State, and therefore do not circumscribe the exercise of the national competent authorities’ discretionary power in that context. The lack of a legal framework in that regard also makes it difficult to exercise judicial review of decisions refusing to grant authorisation. 119 It should be noted with regard to the circumstances and factors referred to (..) a refusal to grant prior authorisation cannot be based merely on the existence of waiting lists enabling the supply of hospital care to be planned and managed on the basis of predetermined general clinical priorities, without carrying out in the individual case in question an objective medical assessment of the patient’s medical condition, the history and probable course of his illness, the degree of pain he is in and/or the nature of his disability at the time when the request for authorisation was made or renewed. (..)

30. Slobodno dvi`ewe na uslugi: opravduvawe na restriktivni merki - – slu~ai okolu zdravstvenata za{tita - Slu~ajotWatts [2006]: “(..) 121. As regards the factors mentioned in Questions 1(a) and 3(d), to the findings set out in paragraphs 59 to 77 of the present judgment should be added the point that, although Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their social security systems and decide the level of resources to be allocated to their operation, the achievement of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty nevertheless inevitably requires Member States to make adjustments to those systems. It does not follow that this undermines their sovereign powers in the field (see Müller-Fauré and van Riet, paragraphs 100 and 102). 122. As Advocate General Geelhoed observed in point 88 of his Opinion, it must therefore be found that the need for the Member States to reconcile the principles and broad scheme of their healthcare system with the requirements arising from the Community freedoms entails, on the same basis as the requirements arising from Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71, a duty on the part of the competent authorities of a national health service, such as the NHS, to provide mechanisms for the reimbursement of the cost of hospital treatment in another Member State to patients to whom that service is not able to provide the treatment required within a medically acceptable period as defined in paragraph 68 of the present judgment”

31. Nediskriminatorski merki na ograni~uvawe na slobodnoto vr{ewe uslugi • Postoeweto na pre~ka na slobodnoto dvi`ewe na uslugi ili na “pristapot kon pazarot” – osnoven kriterium za primena na ~lenot 49 DFEU (eks 43 DEZ): • Slu~ajot Alpine Investments [1993] (zabrana vo Holandija za uslugi preku tkn. “studeno javuvawe” po telefon (bez soglasnost na potro{uva~ot); holandskata firma Alpine Investments spre~ena vo toa da pru`a uslugi vo OK na takov na~in); ESP – merkata e sprotivna na zabranata od ~lenot 49 (eks 43, no e opravdana zaradi za{tita na potro{uva~ite i e proporcionalna: “Dobro vostanovena praktika na Sudot e deka ~lenot 59 (sega 49 DFEU) ne bara samo eliminirawe na sekakva diskriminacija vrz osnov na dr`avjanstvo vo odnos na vr{itelite na uslugi osnovani vo druga zemja-~lenka, tuku i ukinuvawe na sekoe ograni~uvawe, duri i ako toa se primenuva bez distinkcija vrz nacionalnite vr{iteli na uslugi i vrz onie od drugite zemki-~lenki, koe{to mo`e da gi zabrani, popre~i ili da gi napravi ponepovolni aktivnostite za vr{itelot na uslugata osnovan vo druga zemja-~lenka koga zakonski vr{i sli~ni uslugi

32. Op{to zakonodavstvo za plesuvawe na osnovaweto i uslugite • Doma{na rabota …….

33. Opravdani restrikcii • Opravduvawe na restrikciite na slobodata na osnovawe: • Javen poredok; javna sigurnost; javno zdravje; • Slu~ajot Gebhard (1995): dr`avite-~lenki mo`at opravdano da gi ureduvaat dejnostite na “samo-vrabotenite lica”, pod uslov merkite da se: a) primenuvaat nediskriminatorski; b) opravdani so imerativni barawa vo javen interes; v) podobni za zadovoluvawe na celta {to treba da ja ostvarat i g) proporcionalni.