Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-577/10)
Judgment
The action
Findings of the Court
53

European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-577/10)

Judgment of 19 Dec 2012law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-577-10/para_53@2026-11-10

53That being so, it must be borne in mind that a general presumption of fraud is not sufficient to justify a measure which compromises the objectives of the FEU Treaty (see, to that effect, Commission v France, paragraph 52, and Case C-433/04 Commission v Belgium [2006] ECR I-10653, paragraph 35).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-577/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2012:814
Decided: 19 Dec 2012
Procedure: Infringement action
Applicant: European Commission
Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
Rapporteur: E. Jarašiūnas
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J.-C. Bonichot, C. Toader, A. Prechal, E. Jarašiūnas
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62010CJ0577

Topics

Freedom of establishment

History · 1 version

19 Dec 2012Reading

Connections

Cited by 12: Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti (C-33/17); European Commission v Hungary (C-78/18); European Commission v Hungary (C-769/22); KM v European Commission (T-374/20); FI v European Commission (T-694/19); RN v European Commission (T-442/17 R)2 provisions; VW v European Commission (T-243/18); BT v European Commission (T-315/19); Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) v European Commission (T-454/13); Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others (C-315/13)3 provisions; Kostas Konstantinides (C-475/11)2 provisions; Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado (C-212/11)
Cites 18: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Directive 2006/123/EC; Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (Text with EEA relevance); Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland); Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (C-319/06); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-219/08); European Commission v Portuguese Republic (C-458/08); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (96/81); European Commission v Portuguese Republic (C-518/09); Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (C-255/04); Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (C-244/04); Finalarte Sociedade de Construção Civil Ldª, Portugaia Construções Ldª and Engil Sociedade de Construção Civil SA v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft and Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Amilcar Oliveira Rocha, Tudor Stone Ltd, Tecnamb-Tecnologia do Ambiante Ldª, Turiprata Construções Civil Ldª, Duarte dos Santos Sousa and Santos & Kewitz Construções Ldª (C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98, C-53/98, C-54/98, C-68/98, C-69/98, C-70/98, C-71/98); Criminal proceedings against Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL and Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL (C-369/96, C-376/96); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-287/03); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-433/04); Decision 2004/387/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the interoperable delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to public administrations, businesses and citizens (IDABC); Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (C-150/07)