GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

Search articles of European Employment Law Cases
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072022007001016

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open
Rulings

ECJ 18 January 2022, case C-261/20 (Thelen Technopark Berlin), Other Forms of Free Movement

Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH – v – MN, German case
Keywords Other Forms of Free Movement
DOI 10.5553/EELC/187791072022007001016
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 18 January 2022, case C-261/20 (Thelen Technopark Berlin), Other Forms of Free Movement", European Employment Law Cases, 1, (2022):62-62
Download RIS Download BibTex

    It does not follow from EU law that a national court must disapply national provisions on minimum tariffs for architects and engineers which are contrary to Directive 2006/123, although this can follow from other national provisions. Moreover, the disadvantaged party can claim compensation based on state liability as the German implementation legislation is not in conformity with EU law.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Summary

      It does not follow from EU law that a national court must disapply national provisions on minimum tariffs for architects and engineers which are contrary to Directive 2006/123, although this can follow from other national provisions. Moreover, the disadvantaged party can claim compensation based on state liability as the German implementation legislation is not in conformity with EU law.

    • Question

      Is EU law to be interpreted as meaning that a national court, when hearing a dispute which is exclusively between private individuals, is required to disapply a piece of national legislation which, in breach of Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123, sets minimum rates for fees for services provided by architects and engineers and which renders invalid agreements derogating from that legislation.

    • Ruling

      EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, when hearing a dispute which is exclusively between private individuals, is not required, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply a piece of national legislation which, in breach of Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, sets minimum rates for fees for services provided by architects and engineers and which renders invalid agreements derogating from that legislation, without prejudice, however, to, first, the possibility for that court to disapply that legislation on the basis of domestic law in the context of such a dispute, and, second, the right of a party which has been harmed as a result of national law not being in conformity with EU law to claim compensation for the ensuing loss or damage sustained by that party.


Print this article
Contents