¹ On the concept of consumer welfare see for more Richard Just, Darrell Hueth & Andrew Schmitz, The Welfare Economics of Public Policy. A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation 98 (2004); Motta, Massimo, Competition Policy. Theory and Practice 19 (2005); Jones, Alison, Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials 13 (2008); Buttigieg, Eugene, Competition Law: Safeguarding the Consumer Interest. A Comparative Analysis of US Antitrust Law and EC Competition Law 1 (2009); Cseres, Katalin, Competition Law and Consumer Protection 20-21 (2005).Google Scholar

² See e.g. McKenzie, Richard & Lee, Dwight, In Defense of Monopoly. How Market Power Fosters Creative Production (2008).Google Scholar

³ Case C-202/88, French Republic v. Commission, 1991 E.C.R. I-1223, para. 22.Google Scholar

⁴ See Case 2/74, Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, 1974 E.C.R. 631, paras. 15-16; Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH, 1991 E.C.R. I-1979, para. 36.Google Scholar

⁵ Referring to Article 106(1) of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union – TFEU (ex Article 90(1) EEC, ex Article 86(1) EC), the Court also held that EU law does not prevent the granting of exclusive (monopoly) rights “for considerations of a non-economic nature relating to the public interest. However, the manner in which such a monopoly is organized and exercised must not infringe the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods and services or the rules on competition”: Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others, 1991 E.C.R. I-2925, para. 12.Google Scholar

⁶ “The lawfulness of the exclusive right and the lawfulness of the way in which it was granted are two distinct questions that should not be mixed up”: Berend Jan Drijber & Hélène Stergiou, Public Procurement Law and Internal Market Law, 46 Common Market Law Review 826 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷ Cases C-203/08, Sporting Exchange Ltd. v. Minister van Justitie, European Court of Justice judgment of 3 June 2010, <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0203:EN:HTML>, paras. 46 et seq.; C-64/08, Ernst Engelmann, European Court of Justice, judgment of 9 September 2010, not yet reported, paras. 52 et seq. ,+paras.+46+et+seq.;+C-64/08,+Ernst+Engelmann,+European+Court+of+Justice,+judgment+of+9+September+2010,+not+yet+reported,+paras.+52+et+seq.>Google Scholar

⁸ Drijber & Stergiou, supra note 6, at 825-826.Google Scholar

⁹ See in particular Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 Coordinating the Procurement Procedures of Entities Operating in the Water, Energy, Transport and Postal Services Sectors, 2004 O.J. (L 134) 1 and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts, 2004 O.J. (L 134) 114.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, paras. 59-62.Google Scholar

¹¹ However, at the initial stage of existence of the European Economic Community many authors undertook attempts to “nationalize” that notion. Only at the end of 1960s was it widely accepted that the notion of an exclusive right (within the meaning of the Treaty) was a genuine Community concept: see, for more, Volker Emmerich, Das Wirtschaftsrecht der öffentlichen Unternehmen (The Commercial Law of Public Enterprises) 517 (1969), as well as the literature indicated therein.Google Scholar

¹² Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Article 86 – Exclusive Rights and Other Anti-Competitive State Measures, in The EC Law of Competition 282-283 (Jonathan Faull & Ali Nikpay eds., 1999); Frenz, Walter, Handbuch Europarecht. Band 2. Europäisches Kartellrecht (European Law Handbook. 2^nd Band European Antitrust Law) 742 (2006).Google Scholar

¹³ Wyatt, Derrick & Dashwood, Alan, The Substantive Law of the EEC 366 (1980).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sierra, Buendia, supra note 12, at 283-284.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Article 2(f) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the Transparency of Financial Relations Between Member States and Public Undertakings As Well As On Financial Transparency Within Certain Undertakings, 2006 O.J. (L 318) 17; Article 1(5) of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on Competition In The Markets for Electronic Communications Networks and Services, 2002 O.J. (L 249) 21. Before the aforementioned Directives went into force the legal definition of the discussed notion had been contained, among others, in the following Directives issued on the ground of ex Article 90(3) EEC: in Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on Competition in the Markets for Telecommunications Services, 1990 O.J. (L 192) 10, and in Article 2(1)(f) of Commission Directive of 25 June 1980 on the Transparency of Financial Relations Between Member States and Public Undertakings As Well As on Financial transparency Within Certain Undertakings, 1980 O.J. (L 195) 35.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Since Article 106(3) TFEU authorizes the Commission to Issue Directives Exactly In Order to Ensure The Application of the Provisions of Article 106(1) and (2) TFEU, it thus follows that Directives issued on the ground of Article 106(3) TFEU cannot concern undertakings other than those mentioned in Article 106(1) and (2) TFEU (Paul Kapteyn & Pieter VerLoren van Themaat, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities 938 (1998)). As a result, Directives adopted on the ground of Article 106(3) TFEU cannot define undertakings granted with exclusive rights wider than it is admissible on the ground of Article 106(1) TFEU.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, by analogy, Case 188-190/80, French Republic, Italian Republic and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission, 1982 E.C.R. 2545, para. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Whish, Richard, Competition Law 220-221 (2003); Sierra, Buendia, supra note 12, at 284.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, paras. 50-55.Google Scholar

²⁰ Article 2(g) of Directive 2006/111; Article 1(6) of Directive 2002/77, see both at supra note 15.Google Scholar

²¹ On the other hand, the right that was granted in a non-arbitrary way and on the basis of objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, while being capable to be categorized as an exclusive right within the meaning of the Treaty, cannot at the same time be classified as an exclusive right within the meaning of EU public procurement Directives. As the EU legislator in those Directives declares: “Nor may rights granted by a Member State in any form, including by way of acts of concession, to a limited number of undertakings on the basis of objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria that allow any interested party fulfilling those criteria to enjoy those rights be considered special or exclusive rights” (recital 25 of the preamble to Directive 2004/17; Article 2(3) of Directive 2004/17, see both at supra note 9). However, the present article is not concerned with the concept of exclusive rights within the meaning of the EU public procurement regime.Google Scholar

²² Within the meaning of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18, supra note 9.Google Scholar

²³ Within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/17, supra note 9.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Case C-451/08, Helmut Müller GmbH v. Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben, European Court of Justice (ECJ), judgment of 25 March 2010, <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:134:0007:01:EN:HTML>..>Google Scholar

²⁵ Id., at para. 49; see also Case C-399/98, Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi, Piero De Amicis, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Leopoldo Freyrie v. Comune di Milano, 2001 E.C.R. I-5409, para. 77; Case C-220/05, Jean Auroux and Others v. Commune de Roanne, 2007 E.C.R. I-385, para. 45.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Helmut Müller GmbH, supra note 24, para. 49.Google Scholar

²⁷ For example, the contracting authority may become the owner of the work or works which are the subject of the contract. Such an economic benefit may also be held to exist where it is provided that the contracting authority is to hold a legal right over the use of the works which are the subject of the contract in order that they can be made available to the public. The economic benefit may also lie in the economic advantages which the contracting authority may derive from the future use or transfer of the work; See Helmut Müller GmbH, supra note 24, paras. 50-52.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Helmut Müller GmbHm, supra note 24, paras. 55-58.Google Scholar

²⁹ True, there are some authors who claim that the award of a public contract in accordance with public procurement rules cannot be treated as an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU, since such an award is not discretionary (Whish, supra note 18, at 220-221). But as it was already explained, the above-mentioned view cannot be accepted.Google Scholar

³⁰ “Service concession” is a contract of the same type as a public service contract except for the fact that the consideration for the provision of services consists either solely in the right to exploit the service or in this right together with payment (Article 1(4) of the Directive 2004/18; Article 1(3)(b) of the Directive 2004/17, both at supra note 9). A factor vital for determining whether a service concession exists is the exploitation criterion. This criterion means that the concession exists when the operator bears the risk involved in operating the service in question (the risk of establishing and exploiting the system), and obtains a significant part of its revenue from the users, particularly by charging fees in any form whatsoever. See point 2.2 of the Commission Interpretative Communication on Concessions Under Community law, 2000 O.J. (C 121) 2). See also Case C-458/03, Parking Brixen GmbH v. Gemeinde Brixen, Stadtwerke Brixen AG, 2005 E.C.R. I-8585, para. 40; C-410/04, Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) v. Comune di Bari, AMTAB Servizio SpA, 2006 E.C.R. I-3303, para. 16.Google Scholar

³¹ This is a corollary of the fact that the rules included in the EU public procurement Directives do not apply to service concessions (Article 17 of the Directive 2004/18; Article 18 of the Directive 2004/17, both at supra note 9). At the same time, as the ECJ maintains, notwithstanding the fact that public service concession contracts are, as EU law stands at present, excluded from the scope of EU public procurement Directives, the public authorities concluding them are, none the less, bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality, in particular (See Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH, Telefonadress GmbH v. Telekom Austria AG, 2000 E.C.R. I-10745, para. 60; Case C-231/03, Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v. Comune di Cingia de’ Botti, 2005 E.C.R. I-7287, para. 16; Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 46; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 18. See also Section III of this article.Google Scholar

³² Sierra, Buendia, supra note 12, at 287; such an interpretation would consequently mean that the original granting of exclusive rights (as opposed to subsequent granting of exclusive right) is not a “measure” within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU (which would have to be effected in accordance with the Treaty), unless the exclusive right is originally granted to a public undertaking, or to an undertaking already granted with a special right. However, that interpretation, giving the Member States almost absolute leeway in creating monopolies (so-called “Absolute Sovereignty Approach”: David Edward & Mark Hoskins, Article 90: Deregulation and EC Law. Reflections Arising From the XVI FIDE Conference, 32 Common Market Law Review 159, 159-160 (1995), is by no means correct.Google Scholar

³³ See Case 13/77, SA G.B.-INNO-B.M. v. Association des détaillants en tabac (ATAB), 1977 E.C.R. 2115, para. 42.Google Scholar

³⁴ Also with regard to undertakings not specified in Article 106(1) TFEU; See to that effect Case 13/77, ATAB, supra note 33, at para. 33.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Articles 34, 35, 45, 49, 56, and 63 TFEU; see also Section IV of this document.Google Scholar

³⁶ On the objective (substantive) scope of protection of the Treaty rules on free movement see for more Dirk Ehlers, Die Grundfreiheiten der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Allgemeine Lehren (The Fundamental Freedoms of the European Communities. General Lessons), in Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten (European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) 203 (Dirk Ehlers ed., 2005); Frenz, Walter, Handbuch Europarecht. Band 1. Europäische Grundfreiheiten (European Law Handbook. 1^st Band Fundamental Freedoms) 141 (2004); Chalmers, Damian, Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Giorgio Monti & Adam Tomkins, European Union Law 659 (Free Movement of Goods), 699 (Free Movement of Workers and Freedom of Establishment), 747 (Free Movement of Services) (2008); Jarass, Hans, A Unified Approach to the Fundamental Freedoms, in Services and Free Movement in eu law 142, 142-143 (Mads Andenas & Wulf-Henning Roth eds., 2004).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Telaustria Verlags GmbH, supra note 31, paras. 58-62; Coname, supra note 31, paras. 15-28; Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, paras. 44-50; ANAV, supra note 30, paras. 15-22; C-507/03, Commission v. Ireland, 2007 E.C.R. I-9777, paras. 21-32; C-412/04, Commission v. Italy, 2008 E.C.R. I-619, paras. 65-66; C-220/06, Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia v. Administración General del Estado, 2007 E.C.R. I-12175, paras. 71-76; C-347/06, ASM Brescia SpA v. Comune di Rodengo Saiano, 2008 E.C.R. I-5641, paras. 57-60.Google Scholar

³⁸ Drijber, & Stergiou, , supra note 6, 825–826.Google Scholar

³⁹ Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 46; Engelmann, , supra note 7, para. 52.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. at para. 47; Id. at para. 53.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. at para. 49; Id. at para. 54.Google Scholar

⁴² Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 51.Google Scholar

⁴³ Id. at paras. 50 & 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Engelmann, , supra note 7, para. 58.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, at para. 47; Engelmann, , supra note 7, at para. 53.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Coname, supra note 31, at paras. 17 & 20; Commission v. Ireland, supra note 37, para. 29; Commission v. Italy, supra note 37, paras. 66 & 81; ASM Brescia SpA, supra note 37, paras. 59 & 62; Case C-91/08, Wall AG v. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service (FES) GmbH, European Court of Justice (ECJ), judgment of 13 April 2010, not yet reported, at para. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The objective scope of protection of the Treaty rules on free movement does not encompass the economic processes which are purely or wholly internal, (see Case C-19/92, Dieter Kraus v. Land Baden-Württemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-1663, para. 15; C-115/78, J. Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, 1979 E.C.R. 399, para. 24; C-20/87, Ministère public v. André Gauchard, 1987 E.C.R. 4879, para. 13; C-204/87, Criminal proceedings against Guy Bekaert, 1988 E.C.R. 2029, para. 13; C-107/94, P. H. Asscher v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, 1996 E.C.R. I-3089, para. 32), or – in other words – which are confined in all respects within a single Member State (See Case C-332/90, Volker Steen v. Deutsche Bundespost, 1992 E.C.R. I-341, para. 9; C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH, 1991 E.C.R. I-1979, para. 37; C-52/79, Procureur du Roi v. Marc J.V.C. Debauve and others, 1980 E.C.R. 833, para. 9; C-23/93, TV10 SA v. Commissariaat voor de Media, 1994 E.C.R. I-4795, para. 14; C-3/95, Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker, 1996 E.C.R. I-6511, para. 14).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The great majority of those factors are identical with those that were elaborated earlier in the context of public contracts not subject or subject only partially to the EU public procurement Directives (in order to decide whether the public contract is of a certain cross-border interest); on those latter factors see for more Commission's interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives, 2006 O.J. (179/2) point 1.3; See Case C-147/06 SECAP SpA v. Comune di Torino and Santorso Soc. coop. arl v. Comune di Torino, 2008 E.C.R. I-3565, para. 31; opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C-195/04, Commission v. Finland, 2007 E.C.R. I-3351, paras. 93-94; McGowan, David, Clarity at Last? Low Value Contracts and Transparency Obligations, 16 Public Procurement Law Review 280 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ McGowan, , supra note 49, 280.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Article 45(2) & Article 49 at para. 2, TFEU.Google Scholar

⁵² See cases Jean Reyners and Klaus Höfner, referred to in supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁵³ That latter thesis was expressly uttered by the Court that, while interpreting the Treaty rules on free movement, on many occasions has held that in the case of economic processes encompassed by the objective scope of protection of the said Treaty rules “[b]esides the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, the principle of equal treatment (…) is also to be applied to such (…) [processes] even in the absence of discrimination on grounds of nationality”: See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 48; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 20; Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, supra note 37, para. 74.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Case 152/73, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost, 1974 E.C.R. 153, para. 11; Case C-41/84, Pietro Pinna v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Savoie, 1986 E.C.R. 1, para. 23; C-33/88, Pilar Allué and Carmel Mary Coonan v. Università degli studi di Venezia, 1989 E.C.R. 1591, para. 11; C-330/91, The Queen v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Commerzbank AG, 1993 E.C.R. I-4017, para. 14; G-1/93, Halliburton Services BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, 1994 E.C.R. I-1137, para. 15; C-279/93, Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumacker, 1995 E.C.R. I-225, para. 26; C-90/96, David Petrie and others v. Università degli Studi di Verona and Camilla Bettoni, 1997 E.C.R. I-6527, para. 54; C-190/98, Volker Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, 2000 E.C.R. I-493, para. 14; C-400/02, Gerard Merida v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2004 E.C.R. I-8471, para. 21; C-383/05, Raffaele Talotta v. État belge, 2007 E.C.R. I-2555, para. 17.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Such an understanding of the concept of prohibited discrimination within the Treaty rules on free movement (going well beyond the mere discrimination based on nationality, both direct and indirect), has already been accepted by the Court in the field of services. In that regard the ECJ consistently maintains that Article 56 TFEU (ex Article 49 EC) precludes the application of any national rules “which have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within a Member State” (See Case C-381/93, Commission v. French Republic, 1994 E.C.R. I-5145, para. 17; C-118/96, Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län Safir, 1998 E.C.R. I-1897, para. 23; C-94/04, Federico Cipolla v. Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese and C-202/04, Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte v. Roberto Meloni, 2006 E.C.R. I-11421, para. 57; C-250/06, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SPRL, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutélé), Wolu TV ASBL v. Belgium, 2007 E.C.R. I-11135, para. 30). In this context it is argued that “the Court shifts its focus from the protection of the natural/legal person providing/receiving services, to the enhancement of the provision of services as such. This is a considerable extension of the scope of the relevant Treaty provisions, since it brings within their ambit measures which are not particularly restrictive or prejudicial to any specific group of people, but to the free movement of services itself”: see Vassilis Hatzopoulos, Recent Developments of the Case Law of the ECJ in the Field of Services, 37 Common Market Law Review 60 (2000). Nothing precludes the application of a similar approach in the field of import or export of goods, gainful employment, establishment or transfer of capital. Consequently, the Treaty rules on free movement prohibit the national measures that make the cross-border activity more difficult than the purely internal activity, irrespective of whether such discrimination at the expense of cross-border activity is effected directly or indirectly.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See the literal wording of Articles 34, 35, 45(1), 49 at para. 1, 56 at para. 1, and 63 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, 2009 E.C.R. I-519, para. 37; C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos, 2009 E.C.R. I-4273, para. 24. On those two judgments that emphasize the very role of the market access criterion in the case of free movement of goods, and their relation to the famous Keck-Mithouard formula see e.g. Peter Pecho, Good-Bye Keck? A Comment on the Remarkable Judgment in Commission v. Italy, C-110/05, 36 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 257 (2009); Horsley, Thomas, Annotation to Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009; Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009; Case C-265/06, Commission v. Portugal, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 April 2008, 2008 E.C.R. I-2245, 46 Common Market Law Review 2001 (2009); Spaventa, Eleanor, Leaving Keck Behind? The Free Movement of Goods After the Rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos, 34 European Law Review 914 (2009); Pål Wennerås, Ketil B⊘e Moen, Selling Arrangements, Keeping Keck, 35 European Law Review 387 (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Dieter Kraus, supra note 48, para. 32; C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 E.C.R. I-4165, para. 37; Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96, Criminal proceedings against Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL (C-369/96) and Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL (C-376/96), 1999 E.C.R. I-8453, para. 33; C-205/99, Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others v. Administración General del Estado, 2001 E.C.R. I-1271, para. 21; C-439/99, Commission v. Italy, 2002 E.C.R. I-305, para. 22; C-79/01, Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA v. ADP GSI SA, 2002 E.C.R. I-8923, para. 26; C-442/02, Caixa-Bank France v. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, 2004 E.C.R. I-8961, para. 11.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Case C-367/98, Commission v. Portugal, 2002 E.C.R. I-4731, para. 45; C-483/99, Commission v. France, 2002 E.C.R. I-4781, para. 41; C-463/00, Commission v. Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-4581, para. 61; C-98/01, Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2003 E.C.R. I-4641, para. 47; C-282/04 and C-283/04, Commission v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2006 E.C.R. I-9141, para. 20; C-112/05, Commission v. Germany, 2007 E.C.R. I-8995, para. 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Case C-810/79, Peter Überschär v. Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte, 1980 E.C.R. 2747, para. 16; See also Articles 2 and 3(3) of TEU, Articles 8 and 10 of TFEU, and Articles 20 and 21 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice in 2000, 2007 O.J (C 303) 01; on equality in its role as a general principle of EU law see for more Josephine Steiner, Lorna Woods & Christian Twigg-Flesner, Textbook on EC Law 175-76 (2003); Craig, Paul & Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 558 (2008); More, Gillian, The Principle of Equal Treatment: From Market Unifier to Fundamental Right?, in The Evolution of EU Law 517 (Paul Craig & Gráinne de Búrca eds., 1999); Tridimas, Takis, The General Principles of EC Law 40 (1999).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Seyad, Sideek M., Contribution of General Principles to EC Financial Market Integration, in General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development 178 (Ulf Bernitz, Joakim Nergelius, & Cecilia Cardner eds., 2008); Reich, Norbert, Understanding EU Law: Objectives, Principles and Methods of Community law 32 (2005).Google Scholar

⁶² Raitio, Juha, The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law 101 (2003).Google Scholar

⁶³ Thus, irrespective of the fact that the general principle of equality should be applied in the field of exercising fundamental freedoms of TFEU on its own legal basis, i.e. as a general principle of EU law that is binding in the entire scope of application of EU law, it must also influence the interpretation of notions that are included within the very Treaty rules on free movement, and that are applied merely in the field of application of those rules.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See e.g. Hartmut Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (General Administration Law) 135 (2006); Ossenbühl, Fritz, Rechtsquellen und Rechtsbindungen der Verwaltung (Legal Sources of Administrative and Legal Ties), in Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 209 (Hans-Uwe Erichsen & Dirk Ehlers eds., 2002); Wolff, Hans J., Otto Bachof & Rolf Stober, Verwaltungsrecht. Band 1 454 (1999); Peine, Franz-Joseph, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 46 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Maurer, , supra note 64, at 143.; Ossenbühl, supra note 64, at 215.; Wolff, , Bachof & Stober, supra note 64, at 443; Peine, , supra note 64, at 52.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Korbmacher, Günther, Ermessen – unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff - Beurteilungsspielraum (Discretion—An Indefinite Legal Term), 18 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 697 (1965); Maurer, , supra note 64, at 145; Wolff, , Bachof & Stober, supra note 64, at 446.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 51.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In that regard one must also bear in mind the settled case-law of the Court according to which if a prior administrative authorization scheme is based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria, then the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion is circumscribed in such a way that it cannot be used arbitrarily (see Case C-205/99, Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others v. Administración General del Estado, 2001 E.C.R. I-1271, para. 38; C-385/99, V.G. Müller-Fauré v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, and E.E.M. van Riet v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen, 2003 E.C.R. I-4509, para. 85; C-389/05, Commission v. French Republic, 2008 E.C.R. I-5337, para. 94; C-169/07, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Wiener Landesregierung, Oberösterreichische Landesregierung, 2009 E.C.R. I-1721, para. 64; Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 50; Ernst Engelmann, supra note 7, para. 55. In such a situation the administrative discretion as such still exists, but it cannot be used arbitrarily, which in turn makes this discretion conform with the principle of equality. In such instances the authorization scheme, being in conformity with the principle of equality, can be justified relatively easily. It thus follows that in order to preserve the principle of equality, as enshrined within the Treaty rules on free movement, the administrative discretion must not necessarily be eliminated completely, because it is sufficient to circumscribe this discretion appropriately, so that it could not be transformed into arbitrariness. To achieve this aim the national legislator must introduce such statutory criteria of exercising administrative discretion by public authorities that are sufficiently objective. In turn, if a prior administrative authorization scheme is not based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria, then the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion is not circumscribed (i.e. it may be used arbitrarily), and the principle of equality is then breached. True, under the Treaty rules on free movement such a non-objective scheme can still be justified, but it would be rather hard to substantiate that it constitutes the least restrictive alternative and that there are no other equally efficient legal means that could be less burdensome for the undertakings concerned.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ On the essence and function of legal principles. For more, see Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 22 (1978); Alexy, Robert, Theorie der Grundrechte 71 (1994); Larenz, Karl, Richtiges Recht. Grundzüge einer Rechtsethik 23 (1979); Penski, Ulrich, Rechtsgrundsätze und Rechtsregeln. Ihre Unterscheidung und das Problem der Positivität des Rechts (The Legal Principles and Rules of Law. Their Distinction, and the Problem of Positivity of the Right) 44 Juristenzeitung 105 (1989).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Obviously, the qualification of those measures as prohibited restrictions of fundamental freedoms is conditioned upon the fulfillment of the criteria of such qualification that were elaborated in that regard by the Court, i.e. the measures in question must hinder access of goods to the market of a Member State, or hamper, impede or make less attractive the exercising of fundamental freedoms, or dissuade investors in other Member States from investing in the Member State concerned.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Telaustria Verlags GmbH, supra note 31, paras. 61-62; Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 49; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 21; Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, supra note 37, para. 75.Google Scholar

⁷² See to that effect Case C-87/94, Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium, 1996 E.C.R. I-2043, para. 54; Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 48.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Ernst Engelmann, supra note 7, paras. 55 & 57; See also Analir and Others, supra note 68, para. 38; V.G. Müller-Fauré, supra note 68, para. 85; Commission v. French Republic (2008), supra note 68, para. 94; Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, supra note 68, para. 64; Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 50. In all those latter judgments the Court emphasized that even if prior administrative authorization scheme implies the discretionary actions on the part of public authorities, it is nonetheless still in conformity with the principle of equality and could, as such, be subject to justification, provided that, first, there are objective and non-discriminatory award criteria applied, and, second, the above-mentioned criteria are known to all interested parties in advance (requirement for transparency). This shows the very close link that in the Court's view exists between the content of award criteria (on the one hand) and the issue of their publicization (on the other hand) in ensuring the desired equality of all market operators.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Sporting Exchange Ltd., supra note 7, para. 47; see also case Engelmann, supra note 7, para. 53.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Coname, supra note 31, paras. 17 & 19; Commission v. Ireland (2007), supra note 37, paras. 30-31; C-Commission v. Italy (2008), supra note 37, para. 66; ASM Brescia SpA, supra note 37, paras. 59-60.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Coname, supra note 31, para. 18.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 50; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 22; Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, supra note 37, para. 76.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Coname, supra note 31, para. 21.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Commission v. Ireland (2007), supra note 37, para. 32.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 50.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In that regard see the literature concerning the issue of transparency of public contracts not subject or subject only partially to the EU Directives: Adrian Brown, Seeing Through Transparency: The Requirement To Advertise Public Contracts and Concessions Under the EC Treaty, 16 Public Procurement Law Review 18, 18-20 (2007); Brown, Adrian, Transparency Obligations Under the EC Treaty In Relation To Public Contracts That Fall Outside the Procurement Directives: A Note On C-231/03, Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v. Comune di Cingia De’ Botti, 14 Public Procurement Law Review NA158 (2005); Kotsonis, Totis, The Extent of the Transparency Obligation Imposed On a Contracting Authority Awarding a Contract Whose Value Falls Below the Relevant Value Threshold, 16 Public Procurement Law Review, point 3.3 (2007); Hordijk, Erik Pijnacker & Meulenbelt, Maarten, A Bridge Too Far: Why the European Commission's Attempts To Construct An Obligation To Tender Outside The Scope of the Public Procurement Directives Should Be Dismissed, 14 Public Procurement Law Review 127 (2005); McGowan, , supra note 49, 280–281.Google Scholar

⁸² See Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on Public Passenger Transport Services By Rail and By Road and Repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos. 1191/69 and 1107/70, 2007 O.J. (L 315) 1.Google Scholar

⁸³ On those procedures see Articles 28 et seq. of Directive 2004/18/EC.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Sporting Exchange, supra note 7, para. 59.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ This conclusion seems to be reinforced by the wording of para. 62 of Sporting Exchange where the Court held that “Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency are applicable to procedures for the grant of a license to a single operator or for the renewal thereof in the field of games of chance, in so far as the operator in question is not a public operator whose management is subject to direct State supervision or a private operator whose activities are subject to strict control by the public authorities.” This means a contrario that if the operator in question is a public operator whose management is subject to direct State supervision or is a private operator whose activities are subject to strict control by the public authorities, then the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency are not applicable to the procedures for the grant of a license to a single operator or for the renewal thereof (or are applicable, but their breach is then eo ipso justified).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Case 267/86, Pascal Van Eycke v. ASPA NV, 1988 E.C.R. 4769, para. 16; C-332/89, Criminal proceedings against André Marchandise, Jean-Marie Chapuis and SA Trafitex, 1991 E.C.R. I-1027, para. 22; C-2/91, Criminal proceedings against Wolf W. Meng, 1993 E.C.R. I-5751, para. 14; C-185/91, Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v. Gebrüder Reiff GmbH & Co. KG, 1993 E.C.R. I-5801, para. 14; C-245/91, Criminal proceedings against Ohra Schadeverzekeringen NV, 1993 E.C.R. I-5851, para. 10; C-153/93, Germany v. Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, 1994 E.C.R. I-2517, para. 14; C-379/92, Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta, 1994 E.C.R. I-3453, para. 21; C-401 & 402/92, Criminal proceedings against Tankstation ‘t Heukske vof and J. B. E. Boermans, 1994 E.C.R. I-2199, para. 16; C-96/94, Centro Servizi Spediporto Srl v. Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo Srl, 1995 E.C.R. I-2883, para. 21; C-35/99, Criminal proceedings against Manuele Arduino, 2002 E.C.R. I-1529, para. 35; C-198/01, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, 2003 E.C.R. I-8055, para. 46; C-250/03, Giorgio Emanuele Mauri v. Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano, 2005 E.C.R. I-1267, para. 30; Federico Cipolla, supra note 55; Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte, supra note 55, para. 47.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr, supra note 86, paras. 20-24; Centro Servizi Spediporto Srl, supra note 86, paras. 26-30; Criminal proceedings against Manuele Arduino, supra note 86, paras. 36-43; Federico Cipolla, supra note 55; Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte, supra note 55, paras. 48-52.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Opinion of AG Jacobs in Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98, Pavel Pavlov and Others v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten, 2000 E.C.R. I-6451, para. 163; opinion of AG Léger in Case C-35/99, Criminal proceedings against Manuele Arduino, 2002 E.C.R. I-1529, paras. 89-91; Deisenhofer, Thomas, Towards a proportionality test in the field of the liberal professions?, 12 Competition Policy Newsletter 30 (2005).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See e.g. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 8; C-34/95, C-35/95 & C-36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB (C-34/95) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB (C-35/95 and C-36/95), 1997 E.C.R. I-3843, para. 45 (Goods); C-19/92, supra note 48, para. 32; C-55/94, supra note 58, para. 37 (Establishment); C-288/89, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v. Gommissariaat voor de Media, 1991 E.C.R. I-4007, paras. 13-15; C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141, para. 44-45 (Services); Commission v. Portugal (2002), supra note 59, para. 49; Commission v. Spain (2003), supra note 59, para. 68 (Capital).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Such a conclusion, emphasizing the role of the principle of proportionality in the discussed respect, stems also from those Court's judgments that are referred to in para. 59 of Sporting Exchange ruling; See Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v. Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), 1999 E.C.R. I-6067, para. 42; C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd v. Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, 2009 E.C.R. I-7633, paras. 66-67; Sporting Exchange, supra note 7, para. 60 (the importance of the requirement of proportionality in that regard was also underlined in para. 60).Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 62; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 24; Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, supra note 37, para. 86; C-324/07, Coditel Brabant SA v. Commune d'Uccle, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, 2008 E.C.R. I-8457, para. 26; C-573/07, Sea Srl v. Comune di Ponte Nossa, 2009 E.C.R. I-8127, paras. 36-37, 40; C-196/08, Acoset SpA v. Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa and others, 2009 E.C.R. I-9913, paras. 51-52; C-107/98, Teckal Srl v. Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-Acqua Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia, 1999 E.C.R. I-8121, para. 50, which was, however, concerned with the issue of application of provisions of EU public procurement Directives, and not the Treaty rules on free movement.Google Scholar

⁹² See to that effect Case C-26/03, Stadt Halle, RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna, 2005 E.C.R. I-1, para. 50.Google Scholar

⁹³ Within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC and Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/17/EC.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, paras. 64-70.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Stadt Halle, supra note 92, para. 49; C-29/04, Commission v. Austria, 2005 E.C.R. I-9705, para. 46; ANAV, supra note 30, paras. 31-32; C-337/05, Commission v. Italy, 2008 E.C.R. I-2173, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Andrea Filippo Gagliardi, What Future for Member States’ Monopolies?, 23 European Law Review 371 (1998).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For example, Article 106 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 102(b) TFEU, prohibits Member States from granting or maintaining exclusive rights with regard to such undertakings which are manifestly not in a position to satisfy the demand prevailing in the given market: Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v. Macrotron GmbH, 1991 E.C.R. I-1979, para. 31.Google Scholar