CASE COMMENT : ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS - ART. 3(1) (G) AND 10 EC - NATIONAL RULES - AVERTISING PROHIBITION

National rules - Advertising provision: The ECJ confirms its Cipolla case law and rules that Art. 81 EC, 3(1) (g) and 10 EC combined do not preclude the Belgium law prohibiting advertising of dental care services (Ioannis Doulamis)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. ECJ, 13 March 2008, Ioannis Doulamis, case C-446/05 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of national legislation on the conditions governing the exercise of a liberal profession with the provisions of Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC. The question referred for a preliminary ruling was submitted in the context of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Doulamis, a dental technician, in particular for infringement of Belgian national legislation

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Quotation

Cyril Sarrazin, National rules - Advertising provision: The ECJ confirms its Cipolla case law and rules that Art. 81 EC, 3(1) (g) and 10 EC combined do not preclude the Belgium law prohibiting advertising of dental care services (Ioannis Doulamis), 13 March 2008, Concurrences N° 2-2008, Art. N° 16591, p. 101

Visites 4706

All reviews