Case C-396/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2013 — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna
Date: 2013-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, Poland, United Kingdom, administrative sanction, allowances and expenses, collective bargaining, credit, freedom of association, interpretation of the law, pay scale, provision of services, right to justice, trade union, working conditions








C_2013260EN.01003701.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2013 — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna
(Case C-396/13)
2013/C 260/67
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Satakunnan käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry

Defendant: Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna

Questions referred







1.1


May a trade union acting in the interests of workers rely directly on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as an immediate source of rights against a service provider from another Member State in a situation in which the provision claimed to be contrary to Article 47 (Article 84 of the Polish Labour Code) is a purely national provision?










1.2


Does it follow from European Union law, in particular the principle of effective legal protection apparent from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 5, second paragraph, and 6 of Directive 96/71/EC, (1) interpreted in conjunction with the freedom of association in trade union matters protected by Article 12 of the Charter, in proceedings concerning claims which have become due for the purposes of that directive in the State in which the work is performed, that the national court must disapply a provision of the labour code of the workers’ home State which prevents the assignment of a pay claim to a trade union of the State in which the work is performed, if the corresponding provision of the State in which the work is performed permits the assignment of a pay claim which has become due and hence the status of claimant to a trade union of which all the workers who have assigned their claims are members?










1.3


Must the terms of Protocol No 30 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon be interpreted as meaning that a national court situated in a country other than Poland or the United Kingdom must take them into account in the event that the dispute in question has a significant link with Poland, in particular where the law applicable to the contracts of employment is Polish law? In other words, does the Polish-British Protocol preclude the Finnish court from determining that the Polish laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or measures are contrary to the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










1.4


Must Article 14(2) of the Rome I Regulation be interpreted, having regard to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as prohibiting the application of national legislation of a Member State which contains a prohibition of the assignment of claims and demands arising from an employment relationship?










1.5


Must Article 14(2) of the Rome I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the assignment of claims arising from a contract of employment is the law which applies to the contract of employment in question under the Rome I Regulation, regardless of whether the provisions of another law also affect the content of the individual claim?










1.6.


Is Article 3 of Directive 96/71, read in the light of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of minimum rates of pay covers basic hourly pay according to pay groups, job guarantee pay, holiday allowance, flat-rate daily allowance and compensation for daily travel-to-work time, as those terms of work are defined in a collective agreement declared universally applicable and falling within the scope of the annex to the directive?






1.6.1.


Must Articles 56 [and 57] TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding Member States in their capacity as ‘host State’ from imposing, in their national legislation (a universally applicable collective agreement), on service providers from other Member States an obligation to pay compensation for travelling time and a daily allowance to employees posted to their territory, taking into account that under the national legislation referred to all posted workers are regarded as travelling to work for the whole period of their posting, which entitles them to compensation for travelling time and daily allowances?










1.6.2.


Must Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as not permitting the national court to decline to recognise a pay classification created and used in its home State by a company from another Member State, if that has been done?










1.6.3.


Must Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as permitting an employer from another Member State to determine, validly and so as to bind the court of the country in which the work is performed, the categorisation of employees in pay groups in a situation in which a universally applicable collective agreement in the country in which the work is performed requires a categorisation into pay groups with a different end result to be made, or may the Member State which is the host State to which the employees of a service provider from another Member State have been posted lay down rules to be observed by the service provider on the criteria for categorisation of employees into pay groups?










1.6.4.


When interpreting Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC, read in the light of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, are accommodation paid for by an employer who is obliged under a collective agreement mentioned in Question 6 and meal vouchers provided in accordance with a contract of employment by a service provider from another Member State to be regarded as compensation for expenses caused by being a posted worker or as part of the concept of minimum rates of pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)?










1.6.5.


May Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC in conjunction with Articles 56 and 57 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a universally applicable collective agreement of the State in which the work is performed must be regarded as justified on the ground of requirements of public policy, when interpreting the question of job-based pay, compensation for travelling time and daily allowances?










(1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).