''Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën'' (1995) C-384/93 is an
EU law
European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union (EU). Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its val ...
case, concerning the
free movement of services in the European Union.
Facts
Alpine Investments BV claimed that the Dutch Ministry of Finance should not have prohibited it on 1 October 1991 from ‘
cold calling
Cold calling is the solicitation of business from potential customers who have had no prior contact with the salesperson conducting the call. It is an attempt to convince potential customers to purchase either the salesperson's product or servic ...
’ to sell
commodities futures
Futures may mean:
Finance
*Futures contract, a tradable financial derivatives contract
*Futures exchange, a financial market where futures contracts are traded
* ''Futures'' (magazine), an American finance magazine
Music
* ''Futures'' (album), a ...
without prior consent from customers, because this was an unjustifiable restriction on freedom to provide services under
TFEU
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is one of two treaties forming the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU), the other being the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It was previously known as the Treaty Establishi ...
article 56 (ex article 49 TEEC). Alpine, which place orders with
Merrill Lynch, offered portfolio management, investment advice and the transmission of clients’ orders to brokers operating on commodities futures markets. The Wet Effectenhandel (Law on Securities Transactions) of 30 October 1985, article 6(1) required a licence to be an intermediary and art 8(2) said it could be restricted to prevent ‘undesirable developments in securities trading.’ The Ministry got numerous complaints, including people from other member states, and he acted to preserve the Dutch financial sector's reputation. In January 1992 it got authorisation to place orders with another broker, Rodham & Renshaw, but still with a prohibition on cold calling.
The Dutch Administrative Court referred to the ECJ asking whether protection of consumers and protecting the Dutch securities trading reputation could be a public interest reason to stop cold calling, and whether a ban was necessary. It was common ground that this was services under art 60 TEEC as it was for remuneration.
Judgment
The
Court of Justice held that Alpine Investments BV could be restrained from "cold calling" because the rules were likely justified on grounds of consumer protection and preserving the Dutch financial sector's good reputation.
See also
*
European Union law
*
home state regulation
Notes
References
*
{{DEFAULTSORT:Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financien
European Union services case law
1995 in the Netherlands
1995 in case law
Telemarketing