GUIOT
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
28 March 1996 *
In Case C-272/94,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal
Correctionnel, Arion (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
before that court against
Michel Guiot,
Climatec SA, as employer liable at civil law,
on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Tesauro,
Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
*
Language of the case: French.
I- 1915
JUDGMENT OF 28. 3. 1996 — CASE C-272/94
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
— the Public Prosecutor's Office, by Philippe Naze, deputy representing the public
interest in labour matters before the Tribunal de Première Instance (Court
of First Instance), Arlon,
— the Belgian Government, by Jan Devadder, Director of Administration at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,
— the German Government, by Ernst Röder, Ministerialrat at the Federal Ministry
of Economic Affairs, acting as Agent,
— the Luxembourg Government, by N. Schmit, Conseiller de Légation
(1ère
classe) in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by Marie-José Jonczy, Legal
Adviser, and Hélène Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Mr Guiot and Climatec SA, represented by
André Bosseler, of the Arlon Bar; the Belgian Government, represented by Jan
Devadder; the Luxembourg Government, represented by Luc Frieden, AvocatAvoué,
of the Luxembourg Bar; and the Commission, represented by Marie-José
Jonczy and Hélène Michard, at the hearing on 28 September 1995,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 October
1995,
I-1916
GUIOT
gives the following
Judgment
1 By judgment of 1 September 1994, received at the Court on 29 September 1994,
the Tribunal Correctionnel (Criminal Court), Arlon, referred to the Court for a
preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a question on the interpretation
of Articles 59 and 60 thereof.
2 That question was raised in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr Guiot,
in his capacity as managing director of Climatec SA ('Climatec'), a company governed
by Luxembourg law, and against Climatec itself, as employer liable at civil
law, who are accused of having failed to pay, during the period from March
1992 to March 1993, contributions in respect of timbres-fidélité and timbresintempéries
(loyalty and bad-weather stamps), payable under Belgian legislation by
reason of the employment of four workers by Climatec at a site in Arlon (Belgium).
The principal amount due for the period in question is BFR 98 153.
3 Pursuant to the Belgian Collective Labour Agreement of 28 April 1988 ('the agreement'),
concluded in the context of the Construction Sector Joint Committee,
regarding the grant of loyalty stamps and bad-weather stamps and made obligatory
by the Royal Decree of 15 June 1988 {Moniteur Belge of 7 July 1988, p. 9897), loyalty
stamps and bad-weather stamps were payable in respect of those four workers
employed in Belgium.
4 Article 2 of the agreement provides that all undertakings subject to the Construction
Sector Joint Committee are liable to the Fonds de Sécurité d'Existence des
Ouvriers de la Construction (Construction Workers' Subsistence Fund, hereinafter
'the Fund') for a total contribution of 9.12%, of which 9% is to cover loyalty
I-1917
JUDGMENT OF 28. 3.1996 — CASE C-272/94
stamps for their workers and 0.12% is to cover running costs. Pursuant to Article
3 thereof, certain categories of undertaking are moreover liable to the Fund for a
contribution of 2.1%, of which 2% is to cover bad-weather stamps for their workers
and 0.10% is to cover running costs. Under Article 4(1) of the agreement, those
contributions 'shall be calculated on the basis of the gross remuneration (100%) of
the worker'.
5 Furthermore, Climatec is liable in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for two types
of contributions to that State's social security scheme in respect of all the workers
it employs, including those sent to work temporarily in another Member State.
6 In the first place, Article 1 of the Law of 28 January 1971 concerning compensatory
wages for workers laid off during bad winter weather {Mémorial A, 1971, p.
36), provides that, in the event of lay-offs during bad winter weather occurring
during the period from 16 November to 31 March, workers employed in the construction
industry are entitled to an allowance to compensate for loss of wages
('compensatory wages'). Under Article 13, compensatory wages are payable both
for single hours and for whole or consecutive days not worked. Under Article 15,
the gross hourly rate is usually 80% of the normal gross hourly salary of the
worker.
7 Secondly, the Grand Ducal Regulation of 21 July 1989 giving general binding effect
to the 14th and 15th supplements to the Collective Labour Agreement for the construction
industry between the Federation des Entrepreneurs de Nationalité Luxembourgeoise
and the Groupement des Entrepreneurs du Bâtiment et des Travaux
Publics, on the one hand, and the Confedération Luxembourgeoise des Syndicats
Chrétiens and the Confédération Syndical Indépendante, on the other (Mémorial
A, 1989, p. 975), introduced, with effect from 1 January 1989, a requirement for
the employer to pay an end-of-year premium in the amount of 3% of the gross
salary. From 1 January 1993, Article 18 of and Annex IV to the Grand Ducal
Regulation of 16 October 1993 giving general binding effect to the Collective
Labour Agreement for the construction industry between the Onofhängege
I-1918
GUIOT
Gewerkschaftsbond Letzebuerg (OGB-L) and the Letzebuerger Chreschtleche
Gewerkschaftsbond (LCGB), on the one hand, and the Groupement des Entrepreneurs
du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics and the Fédération des Entrepreneurs de
Nationalité Luxembourgeoise, on the other (Memorial A, 1993, p. 1668), increased
that premium to 4% of the gross salary. The premium is paid with the salary for
December, on condition that the employee has been with the undertaking for a
year when the premium falls due (31 December), and it may be reduced progressively
by up to 100% for absences.
8 The Tribunal Correctionnel, Arion, considered that the outcome of the criminal
proceedings depended on the interpretation of the Treaty provisions on freedom to
provide services and therefore decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following
question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
'Are Articles 7, 7a, 59 and 60 of the Treaty on European Union to be interpreted
as meaning that the fact that a Member State makes it obligatory, by means of a
collective agreement made binding by royal decree on all undertakings operating
or coming to operate within its territory in exercise of the freedom to provide services,
for employers to pay contributions in respect of timbres de fidélité and
timbres-intempéries (loyalty and bad-weather stamps) which duplicate the obligations
to contribute in the countries of origin of those undertakings, where they
cover the same risks and have in practice a similar, if not identical, purpose, constitutes
an infringement of the abovementioned articles inasmuch as the measure is
de facto discriminatory, creating a serious obstacle to the achievement of freedom
to provide services within the large internal market without frontiers as a result of
the fact that that obligation gives rise to additional costs for Community undertakings,
thus making them less competitive in the territoiy of the Member State in
question?
More specifically, is the obligation for a construction undertaking established in
another Member State and providing services in the construction sector in Belgium
to pay timbres de fidélité and timbres-intempéries by virtue of the Collective
Labour Agreement of 28 April 1988, made binding by the Royal Decree of 15 June
1988, compatible with Article 59 of the EEC Treaty (restrictions on freedom to
provide cross-frontier services)?'
I-1919
JUDGMENT OF 28. 3.1996 — CASE C-272/94
9 In that question the national court seeks in essence to ascertain whether Articles
59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking
established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the
first Member State to pay employer's contributions in respect of timbres-fidélité
and timbres-intempéries for employees assigned to those works, where that undertalcing
is already liable for comparable employer's contributions with respect to
the same employees and for the same period of work in the State where it is estab-
lished.
10 Article 59 of the Treaty 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 he lawfully provides
similar services (see, in this respect, Case C-76/90 Säger ν Dennemeyer
[1991] ECR I-4221, paragraph 12, and Case C-43/93 Vander Elst ν Office des
Migrations Internationales [1994] ECR I-3803, paragraph 14).
1 1 Even if there is no harmonization in the field, the freedom to provide services, as
one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty, may be restricted only by rules
justified by overriding requirements of public interest and applicable to all persons
and undertakings operating in the territory of the State where the service is provided,
in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the rules to which the provider
of such a service is subject in the Member State where he is established (see,
in particular, Case C-180/89 Commission ν Italy [1991] ECR I-709, paragraph 17,
Case C-198/89 Commission ν Greece [1991] ECR I-727, paragraph 18, and Vander
Elst, referred to above, paragraph 16).
1 2 In this respect, the Court held in Case C-113/89 Rush Portuguesa ([1990] ECR
I-1417, paragraph 18), that Community law does not preclude Member States from
extending their legislation, or collective labour agreements entered into by both
sides of industry, relating to minimum wages, to any person who is employed,
even temporarily, within their territory, regardless of the country in which the
I -1920
GUIOT
employer is established; Community law also does not prohibit Member States
from enforcing those rules by appropriate means.
1 3 In the circumstances, the questions to be considered are, first, whether the requirements
imposed by the Belgian legislation have a restrictive effect on the freedom to
provide services; second, if so, whether overriding requirements of the public
interest in that area justify such restrictions on the freedom to provide services;
and third, if so, whether that interest is already protected by the rules of the State
where the service provider is established and whether the same result can be
achieved by less restrictive rules.
1 4 National legislation which requires an employer, as a person providing a service
within the meaning of the Treaty, to pay employer's contributions to the social
security fund of the host Member State in addition to the contributions already
paid by him to the social security fund of the State where he is established places
an additional financial burden on him, so that he is not, so far as competition is
concerned, on an equal footing with employers established in the host State.
15 Such legislation, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services
and to those of other Member States, is liable to restrict the freedom to provide
services within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty.
16 The public interest relating to the social protection of workers in the construction
industry may however, because of conditions specific to that sector, constitute an
overriding requirement justifying such a restriction on the freedom to provide ser-
vices.
I- 1921
JUDGMENT OF 28. 3.1996 — CASE C-272/94
17 However, that is not the case where the workers in question enjoy the same protection,
or essentially similar protection, by virtue of employer's contributions
already paid by the employer in the Member State of establishment.
18 In those circumstances, it is for the national court to determine whether the
requirements imposed by the legislation of the State of establishment, in this case
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, are similar or in any event comparable to those
imposed by the legislation of the State where the service is provided, in this case
the Kingdom of Belgium.
19 In this respect, it should be noted that, in the question submitted for a preliminary
ruling, the national court pointed out that the Belgian and Luxembourg contributions
at issue in practice cover the same risks and have a similar, if not wholly identical,
purpose.
20 That finding is borne out by the case-file and the information provided in response
to the written questions put by the Court, as well as by the arguments presented at
the hearing. It appears that although the Luxembourg legislation differs from the
Belgian legislation, in particular as regards the percentage of the premiums and the
procedure for their payment, they both provide mechanisms intended, on the one
hand, to protect workers in the construction industry against the risk of suspension
of the work and, therefore, of loss of remuneration because of bad weather
and, on the other hand, to reward their loyalty to the sector in question.
21 Since social protection of workers constitutes the only consideration of public
interest capable of justifying restrictions on the freedom to provide services such as
those at issue, any technical differences in the operation of the two schemes cannot
justify such a restriction.
I-1922
GUIOT
22 The reply to the question put by the national court must therefore be that Articles
59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking
established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the
first-mentioned Member State to pay employer's contributions in respect of
timbres-fidélité and timbres-intempéries with respect to workers assigned to carry
out those works, where that undertaking is already liable for comparable contributions,
with respect to the same workers and for the same period of work, in the
State where it is established.
Costs
23 The costs incurred by the Belgian, German and Luxembourg Governments and
the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations
to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties
to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national
court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunal Correctionnel, Arlon, by
judgment of 1 September 1994, hereby rules:
Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an
undertaking established in another Member State and temporarily carrying
out works in the first-mentioned Member State to pay employer's
I- 1923
JUDGMENT OF 28. 3.1996 — CASE C-272/94
contributions in respect of timbres-fidélité and timbres-intempéries with respect
to workers assigned to carry out those works, where that undertaking is
already liable for comparable contributions, with respect to the same workers
and for the same period of work, in the State where it is established.
Edward Jann Sevón
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 March 1996.
R. Grass
Registrar
D. A. O. Edward
President of the First Chamber
I - 1924