# C_2020313EN.01001001.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2020 — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN

(Case C-261/20)

(2020/C 313/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH

Respondent: MN

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 on services in the internal market (1) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 7 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers (‘the 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? |
| --- | --- |

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 on services in the internal market (1) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 7 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers (‘the 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?

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






  (a) | Does the Federal Republic of Germany’s scheme of mandatory minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers in Paragraph 7 of the HOAI constitute an infringement of the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU or of other general principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

(a)

Does the Federal Republic of Germany’s scheme of mandatory minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers in Paragraph 7 of the HOAI constitute an infringement of the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU or of other general principles of EU law?

| (b) | If Question 2(a) is to be answered in the affirmative: Does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 7 of the HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If Question 2(a) is to be answered in the affirmative: Does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 7 of the HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

---