Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The CJEU endorses the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

This article discusses the judgments handed down by the Court of Justice in reply to Hungary and Poland’s request to annul Directive 2018/957 which had introduced a number of amendments to the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71. Through these amendments, the European legislator had extended the scope of the employment protection of posted workers and these two Member States were of the opinion that this measure was in conflict with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of services. First, this article will briefly examine the amendments to the Posting of Workers Directive. Then, it will analyse the Court’s responses to Hungary and Poland’s arguments. At the end, a brief evaluation follows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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 [1996] OJ L 18/1 (hereinafter Directive 96/71 or PWD).

  2. Art. 3(1) PWD.

  3. Art. 3(8) PWD.

  4. See for a brief overview of the case law: Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, C-620/18 Hungary v EP and Council, EU:C:2020:392, paras 20-44.

  5. Kilpatrick [9], pp. 844-965 and van Hoek [14], pp. 466-471.

  6. See for instance Countouris and Engblom [3], pp. 36-38.

  7. See for instance Kukovec [10], pp. 45-46 and Leczykiewicz [11], pp. 316-322.

  8. Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, C-620/18 Hungary v EP and Council, EU:C:2020:392, para. 17.

  9. For recent reports on such misuses see, inter alia, Cremers [4], and Houwerzijl,Berntsen [7], p. 147-166.

  10. Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (the IMI Regulation’) [2014] OJ L 159/11.

  11. COM(2016) 128. See also the impact assessment report: SWD(2016) 52 final.

  12. Directive 2018/957/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services [2018] OJ L 173/16 (hereinafter Directive 2018/957). On this negotiation process see: Bottero [1], pp. 244-258 and Van Nuffel, Afanasjeva [15], pp. 1415-1416. These latter authors notice that eventually, within the Council of Ministers, only Hungary and Poland voted against and that Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania and the United Kingdom had abstained, thus achieving the necessary qualified majority in the Council.

  13. European Commission [5], p. 13.

  14. New Art. 3(1)(i).

  15. New Art. 3(1)(h).

  16. Art. 2(2) PWD.

  17. This will not apply to procedures, formalities and conditions of the conclusion and termination of the employment contract, including non-competition clauses and to supplementary occupational retirement pension schemes.

  18. European Commission [5], p. 15.

  19. See recital 11 of Directive 2018/957.

  20. For more details on these revisions see: Bottero [1]; Houwerzijl, Verschueren [8], p. 96-103; Lhernould [12]; Van Nuffel, Afanasjeva [15].

  21. Case C-620/18 Hungary v European Parliament and Council, EU:C:2020:1001 (hereinafter ‘judgment Hungary’) and Case C-626/18, Poland v European Parliament and Council, EU:C:2020:1000 (hereinafter: ‘judgment Poland’). In the proceedings the European Parliament and the Council were supported by Germany, France, the Netherlands and the Commission.

  22. See paras 28-36 of judgment Hungary and paras 39-41 of judgment Poland.

  23. Paras 38-64 judgment Hungary and paras 43-71 judgment Poland.

  24. Para. 38 judgment Hungary and para. 43 judgment Poland.

  25. Para. 41 judgment Hungary and para. 46 judgment Poland.

  26. Para. 46 judgment Hungary and para. 51 judgment Poland.

  27. Para. 62 judgment Hungary and para. 66 judgment Poland.

  28. Para. 48 judgment Hungary and para. 53 judgment Poland.

  29. Para. 50 judgment Hungary and para. 55 judgment Poland.

  30. Para. 51 judgment Hungary and para. 56 judgment Poland.

  31. Paras 49 and 63 judgment Hungary and paras 54 and 68 judgment Poland.

  32. Paras 65 to 69 and para. 79 judgment Hungary.

  33. Paras 78 to 81 judgment Hungary.

  34. Paras 86 to 102 judgment Hungary and paras 72 to 85 judgment Poland.

  35. Para. 105 judgment Hungary and para. 88 judgment Poland.

  36. Para. 107 judgment Hungary and para. 90 judgment Poland.

  37. Paras 112 and 115 judgment Hungary and paras 5 and 98 judgment Poland.

  38. Recital 16 says: ‘In a truly integrated and competitive internal market, undertakings compete on the basis of factors such as productivity, efficiency, and the education and skill level of the labour force, as well as the quality of their goods and services and the degree of innovation thereof.’

  39. Paras 128, 139 and 140 judgment Hungary and para. 106 judgment Poland.

  40. Paras 147-149 and 154-156 judgment Hungary and paras 112 and 124-129 judgment Poland.

  41. Paras. 158-162 judgment Hungary.

  42. Case C-815/18 FNV v Van den Bosch, EU:C:2020:976. See also the recently adopted Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 [2020] OJ L 249/49. This directive specifies under which conditions the PWD is applicable to the workers in the road transport sector. As a consequence of the adoption of this directive, the revisions of Directive 2018/958 shall also apply to these workers (Art. 3(3) Directive 2018/957). See also on posting of workers in the road transport sector: van Overbeeke [16].

  43. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L 177/6 (hereinafter ‘Rome I’ Regulation)

  44. Paras 178-180 judgment Hungary and paras 132-134 judgment Poland.

  45. See more on the relation between the PWD and the ‘Rome I’ Regulation: Campo Comba [2], pp. 294-302; Piir [13], pp. 110-114 and van Hoek [14], pp. 455-460.

  46. Para. 135 judgment Poland and recital 37 of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation.

  47. Case C-341/05 Laval, EU:C:2007:809; Case 438/05 Viking, EU:C:2007:772; Case C-346/06 Rüffert, EU:C:2008;189 and Case C-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, EU:C:2008:350.

  48. For a plea for a greater involvement of the EU legislature in balancing ‘the Market’ and ‘the Social’ in the EU see: Garben [6].

References

  1. Bottero, M.: Posting of Workers in EU Law. Challenges of Equality, Solidarity and Fair Competition. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan de Rijn (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Campo Comba, M.: The Law Applicable to Cross-Border Contracts Involving Weaker Parties in EU Private International Law. Springer, Cham (2021)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Countouris, N., Engblom, S.: ‘Protection or protectionism?’ A legal deconstruction of the emerging false dilemma in European integration. Eur. Labour Law J. 6, 36–38 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cremers, J.: EU Company Law, Artificial Corporate Entities and Social Policy. Tilburg Law School, Tilburg (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Commission, E.: Practical Guide on Posting. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garben, S.: The constitutional (im)balance between ‘the market’ and ‘the social’ in the European Union. Eur. Const. Law Rev. 13, 23–61 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Houwerzijl, M., Berntsen, L.: Posting of workers. From a blurred notion associated with ‘cheap labour’ to a tool for ‘fair labour mobility?’. In: Arnholz, J., Lillie, N. (eds.) Posted Work in the European Union. The Political Economy of Free Movement, pp. 147–166. Routledge, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Houwerzijl, M., Verschueren, H.: Free movement of (posted) workers and applicable labour and social law. In: Jaspers, T., Pennings, F., Peters, S. (eds.) European Labour Law, pp. 45–130. Intersentia, Cambridge (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kilpatrick, C.: Laval’s regulatory conundrum: collective standard-setting and the Court’s new approach to posted workers. Eur. Law Rev. 34, 844–865 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kukovec, D.: Law and the periphery. Eur. Law J. 21, 45–46 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leczykiewicz, D.: Conceptualizing conflict between the economic and social in EU law after Viking and Laval. In: Freedland, M., Prassel, J. (eds.) EU Law in the Member States: Viking, Laval and Beyond, pp. 316–322. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lhernould, J.-Ph.: Directive (EU) 2018/957 of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provisions of services. What will change in 2020? ERA Forum 20, 249–257 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Piir, R.: Safeguarding the posted worker. A private international law perspective. Eur. Labour Law J. 10, 110–114 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Hoek, A.: Re-embedding the transnational employment relationship: a tale about the limitation of (EU) law. Common Mark. Law Rev. 55, 449–488 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van Nuffel, P., Afanasjeva, S.: The posting of workers directive revised: enhancing the protection of workers in the cross-border provision of services. Eur. Pap., 1415–1416 (2018)

  16. Van Overbeeke, F.: Posting drivers in the EU road transport sector. ERA Forum 21, 9–20 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Herwig Verschueren

Authors
  1. Herwig Verschueren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herwig Verschueren.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verschueren, H. The CJEU endorses the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive. ERA Forum 22, 557–567 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00680-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00680-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation