The criteria to make the difference between the free provision of services and the establishment was fixed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Gebhart Judgement made on November 30th, 1995, (C-55/94, Rec. P. I-4186). The CJEC defined the concept of establishment as being "(.) a very broad one, allowing a Community national to participate, on a stable and continuous basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom (.)" (§25). The Court has determined the provision of services pointing out that "(.) the fact that the provision of services is temporary does not mean that the provider of services (.) may not equip himself with some form of infrastructure in the host Member State (including an office, chambers or consulting rooms) in so far as such infrastructure is necessary for the purposes of performing the services in question." (§27).
The Court has fixed the criteria to be taken into account in order to determine if an activity is permanent or temporary: "the temporary nature of the provision of services, envisaged in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC Treaty, is to be determined in the light of its duration, regularity, periodicity and continuity." (.) "A national of a Member State who pursues a professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in another Member State where he holds himself out from an established professional base to, amongst others, nationals of that State comes under the provisions of the chapter relating to the right of establishment and not those of the chapter relating to services."
 

Yes.
The CJEC in its Judgement in the Case Klopp dated July 12th, 1984, (107/83, Rec. P. 2971) decided that the right of establishment includes freedom to set up and maintain more than one place of work within the Community. Therefore, the fact to have several places of work does not exclude the applicability of rules relating to free establishment.