## Facts

- Ian William Cowan, a British national, visited Paris as a tourist in June 1982.
- Cowan was violently assaulted at the exit of a Paris Métro station, robbed, and suffered serious physical injuries.
- France maintained a statutory scheme providing state compensation to victims of certain violent crimes.
- French rules limited compensation primarily to French nationals and, for non-nationals, to persons who either (a) held a French residence permit or (b) were nationals of a state with a reciprocity agreement with France.
- Because Cowan was not a French national, did not hold a French residence permit, and did not satisfy any reciprocity condition, the French compensation body refused compensation.
- Cowan argued the exclusion discriminated against him as a Community national and interfered with Treaty-protected rights linked to travel as a recipient of services.
- The French compensation body referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on compatibility with Community law.

## Issues

1. Whether a tourist from another Member State is a “recipient of services” protected by Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services.
2. Whether a state crime-victim compensation scheme falls within the Treaty’s scope when the claimant is exercising Treaty-protected free movement.
3. Whether Article 7 EEC (non-discrimination on grounds of nationality) permits a Member State to condition compensation on a residence permit or reciprocity arrangement for Community nationals traveling as tourists.

## Decision

- The Court held that tourists traveling to another Member State are recipients of services and fall within the scope of Community law.
- The Court ruled that, for persons whose freedom to travel (in particular as recipients of services) is guaranteed by Community law, the host Member State may not condition state compensation for injuries from an assault on holding a residence permit or being a national of a country with a reciprocity agreement.
- The Court interpreted Article 7 EEC to prohibit the discriminatory effect of the French residence and reciprocity conditions as applied to such Community nationals.
- The Court provided an interpretation of Community law; the national body remained responsible for deciding the individual compensation claim in conformity with that interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- The freedom to provide services includes the freedom to receive services; tourists in another Member State may invoke Treaty protections as recipients of services.
- Within the Treaty’s scope, Member States must apply the general prohibition of nationality discrimination (Article 7 EEC) to Community nationals exercising free movement rights.
- A Member State may not restrict access to a benefit connected to conditions of stay (here, state compensation for violent crime injuries) by criteria—such as residence permits or reciprocity—that effectively disadvantage nationals of other Member States.
- Measures that make lawful travel and receipt of services less secure or less protected for non-nationals may be treated as barriers to the effective exercise of free movement rights when they impose unequal treatment.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Community law required equal treatment of an EU tourist seeking crime-victim compensation and barred France from denying compensation based on residence-permit or reciprocity requirements that discriminated against nationals of other Member States within the Treaty’s scope.


Cowan v. Trésor Public, Case 186/87, 1989 E.C.R. 195 (C.J.E.C. 1989)