Omnibus Cabinet Submission

This imperative is equally reflected in the general scheme of both Directives 2010/24 and 2008/55, which set out a sequence providing for assistance by way of exchange of information, then notification, then recovery, and the fact that both directives preclude the making of a request for recovery if the claim itself and/or the instrument permitting enforcement are contested in the applicant Member State This implies that notification of the claim precedes request for its recovery and enforcement.

This Directive should not apply to persons with another professional activity, such as tax experts, accountants or lawyers, who provide advice on insurance cover on an incidental basis in the course of that other professional activity, nor should it apply to the mere provision of information of a general nature on insurance products, provided that the purpose of that activity is not to help the customer conclude or fulfil an insurance or reinsurance contract.

This Decision should also be without prejudice to measures taken at national level, in compliance with Union law, that pursue general interest objectives, in particular relating to content regulation and audiovisual policy, and to the right of Member States to organise and use their spectrum for public order and public security purposes and for defence.

First, as regards the existence of these alleged barriers, it should be stressed that the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not provide detailed information on the existence of such barriers and confined themselves, even in their latest submissions, to general and unsubstantiated allegations, highlighting general features such as differences arising from non-implementation of the Company Law Directive, differences concerning minority shareholders’ rights, creditors’ rights, labour law, the national trademark, and general political or commercial considerations.