RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz.
Date: 2015-11-17
46. As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that the fact that a national court has, formally speaking, worded a question referred for a preliminary ruling with reference to certain provisions of EU law does not preclude the Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation that may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has referred to them in its questions. It is, in this context, for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds in the order for reference, the points of EU law that require interpretation, regard being had to the subject-matter of the dispute (see, inter alia, judgment in Vicoplus and Others , C‑307/09 to C‑309/09, EU:C:2011:64, paragraph 22).
47. In order to give a useful answer to the referring court, the first question must in the first place be examined in the light of the provision of EU law that specifically governs it, namely, Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, a provision to which the referring court, moreover, expressly refers in its second question (see, by analogy, judgment in Rüffert , C‑346/06, EU:C:2008:189, paragraph 18).
57. Furthermore, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, where a national measure falls within a field that has been exhaustively harmonised at EU level, that measure must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in the light of the primary law of the European Union (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments in DaimlerChrysler , C‑324/99, EU:C:2001:682, paragraph 32; Brzeziński , C‑313/05, EU:C:2007:33, paragraph 44; and Commission  v Hungary , C‑115/13, EU:C:2014:253, paragraph 38).
66. It follows that Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, read in conjunction with Directive 96/71, permits the host Member State to lay down, in the context of the award of a public contract, a mandatory rule for minimum protection referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that directive, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires undertakings established in other Member States to comply with an obligation in respect of a minimum rate of pay for the benefit of their workers posted to the territory of the host Member State in order to perform that public contract. Such a rule is part of the level of protection which must be guaranteed to those workers (see, to that effect, judgment in Laval un Partneri , C‑341/05, EU:C:2007:809, paragraphs 74, 80 and 81).
67. That interpretation of Article 26 of Directive 2004/18 is confirmed, furthermore, by a reading of that provision in the light of Article 56 TFEU, since that directive seeks in particular to bring about the freedom to provide services, which is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see, by analogy, judgment in Rüffert , C‑346/06, EU:C:2008:189, paragraph 36).
69. In this regard, according to the case-law of the Court, the imposition, under national legislation, of a minimum wage on tenderers and their subcontractors, if any, established in a Member State other than that of the contracting authority 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, inter alia, judgment in Bundesdruckerei , C‑549/13, EU:C:2014:2235, paragraph 30).
70. Such a national measure may, in principle, be justified by the objective of protecting workers (see, to that effect, judgment in Bundesdruckerei , C‑549/13, EU:C:2014:2235, paragraph 31).