(Judgment) Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking in the construction industry established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the first-mentioned Member State to pay employer’ s contributions in respect of loyalty stamps and bad-weather stamps with respect to workers assigned to carry out those works, where that undertaking is already liable for comparable employer’ s contributions, with respect to the same workers and for the same period of work, in the State where it is established.
Such an obligation, even if it is applicable without distinction to undertakings established in the national territory and those established in another Member State which make use of the freedom to provide services, constitutes, in so far as the competitiveness of the latter is affected since it must pay contributions in two Member States, a restriction on that freedom. Such restriction could be justified by the public interest in the social protection of workers in the construction industry, although in that event the workers in question should not enjoy the same protection or essentially similar protection in the Member State where their employer is established.
It is for the national court to determine whether, apart from the technical differences between the schemes protecting employees in the two Member States in question, the workers concerned do not already benefit, in the Member State where the undertaking which employs them is established, from a mechanism, maintained by the contributions of their employer, which offers them protection essentially comparable to that financed by the contributions provided for in the State where the service is provided. If it is confirmed that such is indeed the case, the restriction on the freedom to provide services is not permissible.
Citations:
C-272/94, [1996] EUECJ C-272/94
Links:
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161439
