Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2235
Date: 2014-09-18
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

summary of the grounds for the TVgG-NRW, it ensures that a reasonable wage is paid to the employees engaged for the performance of public works, which also reduces the burden on the social security system. 15 The Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg considers, first of all, that it must be regarded as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, with the result that it is competent to submit a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. It refers in this regard to the judgment in Forposta (formerly Praxis) and ABC Direct Contact, C‑465/11, EU:C:2012:801. 16 Next, it takes the view that it does not follow from the wording of Paragraph 4(3) of the TVgG-NRW that the obligation contained in that provision is applicable to tenderers for a public contract who intend to subcontract the performance of the services under that contract to operators established exclusively in another Member State of the European Union, since that provision provides no information as to its territorial scope. It might at most be deduced from the objective of the TVgG-NRW, in so far as it seeks to guarantee payment of a reasonable wage to employees carrying out a public contract awarded in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, that Paragraph 4(3) thereof applies throughout German territory. 17 Finally, the Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg takes the view that an extension of that minimum wage to employees performing public contracts outside German territory would constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services and indirect discrimination with respect to tenderers who supply their services in other Member States with very different cost structures. 18 In the opinion of the Vergabekammer, that restriction cannot be justified by the overriding reason in the public interest which is represented by the protection of workers. In the light of the significant disparities between the cost of living in the different Member States of the European Union, the imposition of that minimum wage for those workers is not, in its view, such as to permit attainment of the legitimate objective of guaranteeing reasonable remuneration in the context of the performance of public contracts of contracting authorities in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and is also not necessary for that purpose. The hourly rate corresponding to that minimum wage is, for many Member States, clearly above that which is required in order to guarantee reasonable remuneration in the light of the cost of living in those countries. Furthermore, in the case of public contracts performed entirely outside German territory, it cannot be ruled out that the public interest in the protection of workers may already be taken into account by the legislation of the Member State in which the service is supplied. 19 In those circumstances, the Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Do Article 56 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC preclude national legislation and/or a procurement condition of a public contracting authority according to which a tenderer who wants to obtain a, or the, advertised public contract must (1) undertake to pay the staff appointed to carry out the contract a standard or minimum wage fixed in the legislation, and (2) impose the same obligation on an appointed or prospective subcontractor and submit a corresponding undertaking of the subcontractor to the contracting authority, where (a) the legislation provides for such an obligation only for the procurement of public contracts but not also for the award of private contracts, and (b) the subcontractor is established in another EU Member State and the employees of the subcontractor carry out the services covered by the contract exclusively in the subcontractor’s home country?’ The question referred for a preliminary ruling Admissibility 20 At the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg is a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU and, therefore, whether the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible. 21 According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, in order to determine whether a body making a reference is a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by EU law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (judgments in HI, C‑92/00, EU:C:2002:379, paragraph 25, and in Forposta (formerly Praxis) and ABC Direct Contact, EU:C:2012:801, paragraph 17). 22 In this regard, it is clear from Paragraphs 104 and 105 of the GWB, provisions which govern review proceedings concerning procedures for the award of public contracts before the Vergabekammern, that those bodies, which are granted exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance disputes between economic operators and contracting authorities, satisfy, when called upon to exercise that power, the criteria referred to in paragraph 21 of the present judgment (see, by analogy, with regard to public procurement review bodies, the judgments in HI, EU:C:2002:379, paragraphs 26 and 27, and in Forposta (formerly Praxis) and ABC Direct Contact, EU:C:2012:801, paragraph 18). 23 It follows that the Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg must be classified as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, with the result that its request for a preliminary ruling is admissible. Substance 24 With regard to the scope of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, it must be noted that, unlike in the situation which was at issue in other cases, such as that which gave rise to the judgment in Rüffert, EU:C:2008:189, Directive 96/71 is not applicable to the main proceedings. 25 It is common ground that the tenderer which brought the action in the main proceedings does not intend to perform the public contract by posting, in German territory, employees of its subcontractor, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary established in Poland. 26 On the contrary, according to the actual wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, that question concerns a situation in which ‘the subcontractor is established in another EU Member State and the employees of the subcontractor carry out the services covered by the contract exclusively in the subcontractor’s home country’. 27 Such a situation is not covered by one of the three transnational measures referred to in Article 1(3) of Directive 96/71, with the result that that directive is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings. 28 In addition, although, as the European Commission maintains, the public contract at issue in the main proceedings appears, in the light of its objective and the amount of the contract, to come within the scope of application of Directive 2004/18, and assuming that the requirements relating to the minimum wage laid down in Paragraph 4(3) of the TVgG-NRW can be classified as ‘special conditions relating to the performance of a contract’, in particular ‘social … considerations’, which are ‘indicated in the contract notice or in the specifications’, within the meaning of Article 26 of that directive, the fact remains that, in accordance with that latter provision, such requirements may be imposed only to the extent to which they are ‘compatible with Community law’. 29 It follows that, by its question, the Vergabekammer bei der Bezirksregierung Arnsberg is asking, in essence, whether, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intends to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a subcontractor established in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of legislation of the Member State to which that contracting authority belongs which requires that subcontractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation. 30 In this regard, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the imposition, under national legislation, of a minimum wage on subcontractors of a tenderer which are established in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs and in which minimum rates of pay are lower constitutes an additional economic burden that may prohibit, impede or render less attractive the provision of their services in the host Member State. Consequently, a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is capable of constituting a restriction within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU (see, to that effect, the judgment in Rüffert, EU:C:2008:189, paragraph 37). 31 Such a national measure may in principle be justified by the objective of protecting employees expressly referred to by the legislature of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in the draft legislation which culminated in the adoption of the TVgG-NRW, namely that of ensuring that employees are paid a reasonable wage in order to avoid both ‘social dumping’ and the penalisation of competing undertakings which grant a reasonable wage to their employees. 32 However, the Court has already held that, in so far as it applies solely to public contracts, such a national measure is not appropriate for achieving that objective if there is no information to suggest that employees working in the private sector are not in need of the same wage protection as those working in the context of public contracts (see, to that effect, the judgment in Rüffert, EU:C:2008:189, paragraphs 38 to 40). 33 In any event, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as its scope extends to cover a situation such as that in the dispute in the main proceedings, in which employees carry out a public contract in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs and in which the minimum wage rates are lower, appears disproportionate. 34 By imposing, in such a situation, a fixed minimum wage corresponding to that required in order to ensure reasonable remuneration for employees in the Member State of the contracting authority in the light of the cost of living in that Member State, but which bears no relation to the cost of living in the Member State in which the services relating to the public contract at issue are performed and for that reason prevents subcontractors established in that Member State from deriving a competitive advantage from the differences between the respective rates of pay, that national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to ensure that the objective of employee protection is attained. 35 The wage protection measure at issue in the main proceedings also cannot be justified in the light of the objective of stability of social security systems. It has not been claimed, and also does not appear tenable to assert, that the application of that measure to the Polish employees concerned is necessary in order to avoid a risk of seriously undermining the balance of the German social security system (see, by analogy, the judgment in Rüffert, EU:C:2008:189, paragraph 42). If those employees did not receive a reasonable wage and were consequently forced to have recourse to social security in order to ensure a minimum level of purchasing power, it would be to Polish social assistance that they would have a right. Such a consequence would clearly not affect the German social security system. 36 In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intends to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a subcontractor established in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of legislation of the Member State to which that contracting authority belongs which requires that subcontractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation. Costs 37 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules: In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intends to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a subcontractor established in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs, Article 56 TFEU precludes the application of legislation of the Member State to which that contracting authority belongs which requires that subcontractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation. [Signatures] * Language of the case: German.