## Facts

- The case concerned German legislation restricting a patent renewals agent established in another Member State from providing services in Germany without a physical establishment.
- The restriction was challenged on the grounds that it impeded the freedom to provide services as set out in Article 56 TFEU.
- The justification for the restriction was the protection of industrial and commercial property and the proper administration of justice.
- The European Court of Justice examined the compatibility of this restriction with EU law.

## Issues

1. Whether the German requirement for a physical establishment for patent renewals agents constituted a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU.
2. Whether such a restriction could be justified by overriding reasons of general interest.
3. Whether the restriction satisfied the principle of proportionality, meaning it was suitable and necessary to achieve the stated objectives.

## Decision

- The ECJ held that the national measure did restrict the free movement of services protected by Article 56 TFEU.
- The Court found that restrictions may be justified by overriding reasons of general interest, such as the protection of industrial and commercial property and the proper administration of justice.
- The ECJ emphasized that such justifications are only valid if the measure is proportionate—suitable for achieving its objective and not exceeding what is necessary.
- The requirement for physical establishment was scrutinized under the proportionality test.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the EU must be assessed under Article 56 TFEU.
- Overriding reasons of general interest can justify restrictions, but only where measures are suitable, necessary, and proportionate to the objectives pursued.
- National regulations affecting cross-border service provision must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their aims.
- The assessment criteria established in this case have influenced subsequent ECJ jurisprudence concerning the free movement of services.

## Conclusion

Säger v Dennemeyer established that Member State restrictions on the free movement of services may be justified by overriding reasons of general interest, but are valid only if they are proportionate and necessary for achieving legitimate aims, thereby forming a lasting framework for evaluating national regulations under Article 56 TFEU.

Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd (Case C-76/90) [1991] ECR I-4221