Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiēn
| Published date | 01 March 1995 |
| Date | 01 March 1995 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025703 |
| Pages | 174-175 |
| Author | Vanessa Edwards |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 3 No. 2 — Cold Calling
COLD CALLING
Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiēn
Vanessa Edwards
Following numerous complaints from investors,
some established in other Member States, who had
made unfortunate investments in commodities
futures, the Netherlands prohibited financial inter-
mediaries who offered investments in off-market
commodities futures from cold calling potential
clients. With a view to preserving the reputation of
the Netherlands financial sector, the prohibition
extended to offers of services made to other Mem-
ber States from the Netherlands. In proceedings
challenging the lawfulness of the prohibition, the
Netherlands court referred to the Court of Justice
questions as to whether the prohibition fell within
the scope of Article 59 of the Treaty (freedom to
provide services) and, if
so,
whether it could none-
theless
be
justified.
DOES ARTICLE 59 APPLY?
The freedom to provide services would become
illusory if national rules were at liberty to restrict
offers of services, so that the prior existence of an
identifiable recipient cannot be a condition for
application of the provisions on the freedom to
provide services. Since in this case the offers of
services are made by a provider established in one
Member State to a potential recipient established
in another Member State, Article 59 applies even
though the offer is by telephone and the services
are provided without the provider's moving from
the Member State in which he is established.
DOES THE PROHIBITION RESTRICT
THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE
SERVICES?
The prohibition docs not constitute a restriction
on freedom to provide services solely by virtue of
the fact that other Member States apply less strict
rules to providers of similar services established in
their territory. Since, however, it deprives the
operators concerned of a rapid and direct tech-
nique for marketing and for contracting potential
clients in other Member States, it can constitute a
restriction on the freedom to provide cross-border
services even though it is imposed by the Member
Page 174
To continue reading
Request your trial