This post is sponsored by abogados de accidentes
(1) CJ considered ‘objective justification’ as a possible derogation – taking into account the particular services to be provided. Purpose is application of professional rules justified by general good e.g. organisation, qualifications, ethics, supervision, liability. They are binding on those established in the state where service is provided. Person providing services would escape the rules by being established elsewhere. State would need to show: legitimate public interest; equally applicable rule; objective justification.
(2) Not mentioned specifically in Art.56TFEU Luisi and Carbone –v- Ministero del Tesoro  ECR 377. Two Italians were prosecuted for exceeding limits on currency movements from Italy. Withdrew large sums (US$, French & Swiss Francs, DMs) and crossed into Germany and France ‘for purposes of tourism’ and also for medical treatment. CJ held that: an ‘important corollary’ of right to provide services is right to receive them – otherwise, Art.56 is ineffective. Art.56 includes freedom to go to another M/S to receive a service there without obstruction – tourists, persons receiving medical treatment, and persons travelling for purpose of education or business.
In Cowan –v- Trésor Public  English tourist was assaulted and robbed on Paris métro – applied to French state for criminal injuries compensation – claim refused as it could only be made by French national. CJ: rule obstructed his right to move freely in France and receive services (tourism) – breached his Art.56 rights.