Professor Takis Tridimas:

I appreciate that the view of the Attorney General carries weight. There is no doubt about that but the Attorney General does not have the ultimate say as regards the interpretation of law. That is for the courts. The arguments given by the Attorney General in support of his conclusion do not accurately represent the position under EU law. I have discussed his arguments regarding potential remedies. In the event the ban were found to be incompatible with EU law, I do not believe any liability would arise. On the substantive issue, the Attorney General does not take into account that the European Union is bound by pre-emptory rules of international law, the jus cogens of customary international law. He has not given sufficient weight to the fact that the authority we have on the interpretation of public security and public policy in respect of intra-EU movement should also guide us in interpreting what member states can do under the concept of public policy in respect of external trade. There would be something odd in allowing member states to restrict the free flow of services within the EU, a core EU freedom, while not allowing them to restrict the movement of services to and from third countries.

If I can put it this way, it is not one of the four fundamental freedoms that the EU guarantees.