Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)
10 September 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Article 56 TFEU – Restrictions – Private security activities – National legislation requiring prior authorisation to carry out such an activity – Taking into account guarantees provided in the Member State of origin of the service provider )
[para_5]In Case C‑602/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking), Belgium), made by decision of 11 August 2025, received at the Court on 11 September 2025, in the proceedings
Ithaque Sécurité SAS
[para_8]v
[para_9]État belge,
[para_10]THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
[para_11]composed of O. Spineanu-Matei, President of the Chamber, S. Rodin and N. Fenger (Rapporteur), Judges,
[para_12]Advocate General: A. Rantos,
[para_13]Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
[para_14]having regard to the written procedure,
[para_15]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_16]– Ithaque Sécurité SAS, by E. Bouillon, B. Lebrun and C. Lecharlier, avocats,
[para_17]– the Belgian Government, by F. Hayois, C. Jacob and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by M. Chomé, S. Depré and R. Mirzabekiantz, avocats,
[para_18]– the Czech Government, by A. Edelmannová, L. Halajová and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,
[para_19]– the Finnish Government, by H. Leppo and K. Vanhanen, acting as Agents,
[para_20]– the European Commission, by M. Mataija, G. Meeßen and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,
[para_21]having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
[para_22]gives the following
Judgment
[para_24]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU.
[para_25]2 The request has been made in proceedings between Ithaque Sécurité SAS, a company incorporated under French law (‘Ithaque’), and the État belge (Belgian State), concerning a decision of the adviser of the Directorate-General for Security and Prevention Policy of the ‘Home Affairs Federal Public Service’ imposing on that company an administrative fine, of which the latter seeks the annulment.
Legal context
European Union law
3 The first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU states:
[para_29]‘Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the [European] Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.’
Belgian law
[para_31]4 Under Article 16 of the loi réglementant la sécurité privée et particulière, du 2 octobre 2017 (Law of 2 October 2017 on private and personal security) ( Moniteur belge of 31 October 2017, p. 96776) (‘the Law of 2 October 2017’), only undertakings authorised by the Belgian Minister for Home Affairs may provide services in the field covered by that law.
5 Under Article 19 of that law:
[para_33]‘Where the applicant for authorisation does not have a place of business in Belgium, the Minister for Home Affairs, while assessing the application, shall take into consideration the guarantees provided in the lawful and regulated pursuit of activities in respect of which the application was made in another Member State of the European Economic Area.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_35]6 Ithaque is a company active in the security sector and works regularly for Française des Jeux, a commercial company governed by French law which organises numerous games of chance.
[para_36]7 On the occasion of a lottery draw that was to be held in Bruges (Belgium) in December 2021, Française des Jeux hired Ithaque to ensure the proper conduct of the operations. The latter contacted the competent Belgian authority, which requested it to lodge an application for authorisation using the form provided for that purpose and to pay the fee, amounting to EUR 1 000.
[para_37]8 Ithaque refused to request authorisation from that authority and to pay that fee, taking the view that it should not be subject to such a procedure, since it already had authorisation issued by the French authorities which should have been recognised in Belgium.
[para_38]9 That company therefore performed the task for which it had been hired, in breach of Article 16 of the Law of 2 October 2017.
[para_39]10 Following that breach, the adviser of the Directorate-General for Security and Prevention Policy of the ‘Home Affairs Federal Public Service’, by decision of 14 February 2024, imposed an administrative fine of EUR 15 000 on Ithaque.
[para_40]11 By application of 4 April 2024, that company applied to the tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking), Belgium), which is the referring court, for the annulment of that decision.
[para_41]12 That court states that Ithaque considers that it should have benefited from a simplified authorisation procedure, in the context of which the requirements imposed by the French authorities were compared with those laid down by the Law of 2 October 2017 for the pursuit of activities in the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium, so as to validate, in essence, the authorisation under French law and, accordingly, to authorise that company to provide private security services in Belgium.
[para_42]13 Since such a simplified procedure was not established in Belgium, a company governed by foreign law wishing to carry out its activities in that Member State should follow the full authorisation procedure, subject to the condition that the authority must take account of the guarantees provided in another Member State, without further details.
[para_43]14 According to the referring court, the question therefore arises as to whether the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU requires Member States not to take account of non-defined, or even vague, factors, but to lay down a positive obligation on them to accept in principle the activities of security firms established elsewhere in the European Union, with, however, the possibility of carrying out certain checks, such as in relation to the equivalence of diplomas.
[para_44]15 In those circumstances, the tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking)) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_45]‘Is the first paragraph of Article 56 [TFEU] to be interpreted as meaning that it requires a [Member] State to allow as a rule, within its territory, the activities of security firms established in another Member State, subject to the sole proviso that it may carry out certain checks?’
Consideration of the question referred
[para_47]16 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the provision of security services on its national territory by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to the issue of an administrative authorisation, on pain of a penalty being imposed on any infringing undertaking.
[para_48]17 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that private security services have not, to date, been harmonised at EU level. However, although it is true that, in such circumstances, Member States remain, in principle, competent to define the conditions for the pursuit of the activities in that sector, they must, when exercising their powers in this area, respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, in particular, the freedom to provide services under Article 56 thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 January 2006, Commission v Spain , C‑514/03, EU:C:2006:63, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
[para_49]18 It is settled case-law that Article 56 TFEU requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where it lawfully provides similar services (judgments of 7 October 2010, dos Santos Palhota and Others , C‑515/08, EU:C:2010:589, paragraph 29, and of 22 January 2026, Vlaams Gewest , C‑413/24, EU:C:2026:30, paragraph 22).
[para_50]19 National legislation which makes, on national territory, the provision of certain services, such as security services, by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to the issue of an administrative authorisation, on pain of a penalty being imposed on any infringing undertaking, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 58; of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others , C‑390/12, EU:C:2014:281, paragraph 39; of 22 June 2017, Unibet International , C‑49/16, EU:C:2017:491, paragraph 33; and of 12 September 2019, Maksimovic and Others , C‑64/18, C‑140/18, C‑146/18 and C‑148/18, EU:C:2019:723, paragraph 32). That is the case even if service providers established in other Member States are also obliged to apply for authorisation in order to provide a similar supply of services in those Member States.
[para_51]20 It follows that legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is in principle contrary to Article 56 TFEU, and as such prohibited thereunder, unless it can be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest and on condition, moreover, that it is proportionate to the objective pursued (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
[para_52]21 In that regard, it must be noted that the requirement that administrative authorisation be obtained before private security activities may be undertaken is, of itself, likely to meet the need to protect public order, account taken of the specific nature of those activities (judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 61).
[para_53]22 However, an obstacle may be justified only in so far as the public interest relied on is not already safeguarded by the rules to which the service provider is subject in the Member State in which it is established (judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).
[para_54]23 Thus, a measure introduced by a Member State, which in effect duplicates supervision which has already been carried out in the Member State where the service provider is established, cannot be considered necessary to attain the objective pursued (judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 63).
[para_55]24 In particular, the Court has held that the requirement that members of the staff of a private security undertaking must obtain a fresh specific authorisation in the host Member State constitutes an unjustified restriction on that undertaking’s freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU, in so far as it does not take account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin (judgment of 26 January 2006, Commission v Spain , C‑514/03, EU:C:2006:63, paragraph 55). Similarly, it held that national legislation under which a security undertaking had to obtain a territorial licence was contrary to that article in the absence of an express provision in the national legislation obliging account to be taken of the requirements laid down in the Member State of establishment (judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 67).
[para_56]25 In the present case, Article 19 of the Law of 2 October 2017 provides that ‘where the applicant for authorisation does not have a place of business in Belgium, the Minister for Home Affairs, while assessing the application, shall take into consideration the guarantees provided in the lawful and regulated pursuit of activities in respect of which the application was made in another Member State of the European Economic Area.’
[para_57]26 It should be recalled that, as regards the Belgian legislation which preceded that provision, namely the loi du 10 avril 1990 sur les entreprises de gardiennage, les entreprises de sécurité et les services internes de gardiennage (Law of 10 April 1990 on security undertakings and internal security services) ( Moniteur belge of 29 May 1990, p. 10963), the Court held that, by requiring all security undertakings to fulfil the same conditions for obtaining authorisation, without account being taken of the obligations to which the undertaking providing the service is already subject for the pursuit of its activity in the Member State of establishment, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU (judgment of 9 March 2000, Commission v Belgium , C‑355/98, EU:C:2000:113, paragraph 38 and the operative part).
[para_58]27 In that regard, in its observations, the Belgian Government submits that, by adopting the loi du 10 juin 2001 modifiant la loi du 10 avril 1990 sur les entreprises de gardiennage, sur les entreprises de sécurité et sur les services internes de gardiennage (Law of 10 June 2001 amending the Law of 10 April 1990 on security undertakings and internal security services), the content of Article 4 of which was subsequently reproduced in Article 19 of the Law of 2 October 2017, the Kingdom of Belgium sought to remedy that failure. The Belgian Government states that it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for the Law of 2 October 2017 that the Belgian authority will no longer carry out an investigation into the conditions of authorisation in respect of which the undertaking established abroad has already provided, in the Member State in which it is established, guarantees equivalent to those required by the Belgian legislation. Consequently, in such a case, the grant of authorisation to that undertaking would be very simplified, or almost immediate.
[para_59]28 Nevertheless, Ithaque submits, in its written observations, that the competent Belgian authority continues to require private security undertakings established in another Member State to lodge a full application for authorisation, to produce all the documents required from a Belgian undertaking which is not yet authorised and to pay in full the administrative costs associated with that procedure.
[para_60]29 It is settled case-law that a Member State may not make the provision of services in its territory subject to compliance with all the conditions required for establishment, thereby depriving of all practical effectiveness the provisions whose object is to guarantee the freedom to provide services (judgment of 24 January 2002, Portugaia Construções , C‑164/99, EU:C:2002:40, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
[para_61]30 Thus, it will be for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the present case, the competent authorities of the host Member State have not imposed on a service provider established in another Member State conditions and checks equivalent to those required for establishment.
[para_62]31 In particular, that court will have to verify that the information requested does not go beyond what is necessary to assess the performance of a specific service rather than establishment.
[para_63]32 If that is the case, that court will also have to ascertain whether, in the present case, those authorities have not imposed conditions and checks which duplicate those to which the service provider is subject in the Member State in which it is established.
[para_64]33 As regards the administrative costs charged when applying for authorisation, it must be ascertained whether, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, those fees are not excessive or unreasonable. In that regard, the excessive or unreasonable and, accordingly, disproportionate nature of such fees must be assessed in the light of the costs which are generated by the processing of that application, which must thus be borne by the Member State concerned (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 June 2024, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Posting of third-country workers) , C‑540/22, EU:C:2024:530, paragraphs 119 and 120).
[para_65]34 Similarly, even if, as the European Commission maintains, a bank guarantee for the payment of any administrative fees and fines is required by Belgian legislation, the referring court will have to determine whether such a guarantee is genuinely necessary and proportionate in the context of the provision of specific cross-border services.
[para_66]35 The obligation to provide such a guarantee with a Belgian body is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide services, within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU, in so far as it makes the provision of services more onerous for private security undertakings established in other Member States than for those established in Belgium (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 January 2006, Commission v Spain , C‑514/03, EU:C:2006:63, paragraph 41, and of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 109).
[para_67]36 Such an obstacle can be justified only to the extent that the general interest in question – namely, in ensuring that the Belgian authorities have at their disposal the amounts necessary to guarantee payment of public law debts imposed under the national legislation in force – is not already safeguarded by the rules to which the service provider is subject in the Member State in which it is established (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 December 2007, Commission v Italy , C‑465/05, EU:C:2007:781, paragraph 111).
[para_68]37 In that regard, it should be noted that, in so far as the Belgian legislation requires the provision of that bank guarantee, without taking account of any bank guarantee lodged in the Member State of origin, capable of ensuring adequate protection of those public debts, it imposes an obligation going beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 January 2006, Commission v Spain , C‑514/03, EU:C:2006:63, paragraph 43).
[para_69]38 For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the fact that certain concepts set out in Article 19 of the Law of 2 October 2017 are regarded by the referring court as particularly broad does not preclude that provision from being regarded as laying down clear and precise rules enabling individuals to predict their effects, since any ambiguity or vagueness in those concepts may be dispelled by using the ordinary methods of interpretation of the law (see, that effect, judgment of 22 January 2026, AK Dlhopolec and Others , C‑590/24, EU:C:2026:41, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited), which it is for the referring court to assess.
[para_70]39 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the provision of security services on its national territory by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to the issue of an administrative authorisation, on pain of a penalty being imposed on any infringing undertaking, provided that that legislation:
[para_71]– does not impose on the service provider conditions and checks equivalent to those required for establishment;
[para_72]– provides for due account to be taken of all conditions already satisfied by the service provider in the Member State in which it is established, in so far as they correspond to those imposed by the host Member State in order to protect public policy;
[para_73]– and does not set disproportionate administrative costs or impose unnecessary or disproportionate guarantees.
Costs
[para_75]40 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_77]Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the provision of security services on its national territory by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to the issue of an administrative authorisation, on pain of a penalty being imposed on any infringing undertaking, provided that that legislation:
[para_78]– does not impose on the service provider conditions and checks equivalent to those required for establishment;
[para_79]– provides for due account to be taken of all conditions already satisfied by the service provider in the Member State in which it is established, in so far as they correspond to those imposed by the host Member State in order to protect public policy;
[para_80]– and does not set disproportionate administrative costs or impose unnecessary or disproportionate guarantees.
[para_81][Signatures]
[para_82]* Language of the case: French.