# C_2022002EN.01001701.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ID v Stadt Mainz

(Case C-544/21)

(2022/C 2/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ID

Defendant: Stadt Mainz

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 260(1) TFEU, that, in the context of ongoing court proceedings between private persons, Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (‘the Services Directive’) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 4 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers) of 1996, as amended in 2002 (‘the 2002 HOAI’), pursuant to which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, are no longer to be applied, even in the case of claims arising from an architect’s contract concluded in 2004, that is to say, prior to the adoption of the Services Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 260(1) TFEU, that, in the context of ongoing court proceedings between private persons, Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (‘the Services Directive’) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 4 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers) of 1996, as amended in 2002 (‘the 2002 HOAI’), pursuant to which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, are no longer to be applied, even in the case of claims arising from an architect’s contract concluded in 2004, that is to say, prior to the adoption of the Services Directive?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:





  (a) | Is Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 TEC) to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI, under which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, is precluded by, or constitutes an infringement of, that article? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

Is Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 TEC) to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI, under which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, is precluded by, or constitutes an infringement of, that article?

| (b) | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---