C-33/74, Van Binsbergen [1974]

1. Facts:

• Residency Requirement: Dutch law required that only lawyers residing in the Netherlands could practice in Dutch courts.

• Case: A lawyer living just outside the Netherlands (across the border) was affected by this law. While the rule was not directly discriminatory (since it applied to all lawyers, regardless of nationality, as long as they resided in the Netherlands), it disproportionately affected foreign lawyers.

2. Outcome:

• Violation of Art. 56 TFEU: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that the Dutch residency requirement violated Article 56 TFEU. Even though the measure was not overtly discriminatory, it was deemed to hinder the free movement of services because it disproportionately affected foreign lawyers compared to domestic ones.

3. Extra Key Points:

• Objective Justification Test: The case established the framework for evaluating whether a restriction on free movement of services could be justified.

◦ Legitimate Public Interest: A measure must pursue a legitimate public interest objective.

◦ Non-Discriminatory: The measure must apply equally to both nationals and foreigners, without direct or indirect discrimination.

◦ Proportionality: The measure must be proportionate, meaning it should be necessary and not go beyond what is required to achieve the objective.