Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free movement of workers, free movement of services and the posted workers directive: a Bermuda triangle for national labour standards?

  • Published:
Era Forum Aims and scope

Conclusion

Against the backdrop of EU enlargement and the ill-fated Services Directive, the interaction between free movement of workers and free movement of services has gained substantial interest in academia, legal practice, business and beyond. The topical and sensitive debate as to whether European integration and the internal market will work as a Trojan horse to Old Europe’s highly regulated labour markets and costly welfare states is exemplified by the issue of transnational posting of workers and applicable labour standards.

After an initial blank check inRush Portuguesa the ECJ has backtracked and developed an intricate balancing act that permits a conditional application of host country labour standards whilst maintaining unfettered free movement as a crowning principle of Europe’s internal market. The balancing is essentially to be performed by the competent national judge or authority who, under the ECJ’s guidance, must ascertain on a case-by-case basis whether the imposed application of national law to a transnational services provider is justified by an overriding public interest. The task is far from menial, since it requires both a legal and a factual comparison of labour standards in both the country of origin and the host country, as well as a creative brainstorm on proportionality and necessity.

As a result, the Posted Workers Directive and its national implementations can only be deemed compatible with the TEC’s free movement of services to the extent that their application in a particular case indeed survives the requisite balancing. It is by no means a perfectly clear or predictable situation, but one that leaves room for flexibility and succeeds in what the so-called “European Social Model” should probably stand for: a combination of both free competition and social protection, not the domination of one over the other. The combination of free movement of workers, free movement of services and the Posted Workers Directive is not a Bermuda triangle for national labour standards. But it is not their guardian angel either.

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

References

  1. W. van Eeckhoutte, “The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Labour Law (1980)”, in: R. Blanpain (ed.), Freedom of Services in the European Union, Kluwer Law International, 2006.

  2. Case C-113/89Rush Portuguesa [1990] ECR I-1417

  3. A. Supiot (ed.), Au-delà de l’emploi; transformations du travail et devenir du droit du travail en Europe, Rapport à la Commission européenne, Flammarion, Paris, 1999.

  4. Commission of the European Communities, Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (period 1 May 2004–30 April 2006), 2006.

  5. Case 66/85Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121

  6. Case C-107/94Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [1996] ECR I-3089, paragraph 26.

  7. Case C-337/97Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289.

  8. Case C-256/01Allonby [2004] ECR I-873.

  9. Case C-256/01Allonby [2004] ECR I-873.

  10. Case C-1 13/89Rush Portuguesa [1990] ECR I-1417.

  11. Case C-113/89Rush Portuguesa [1990] ECR I-1417, paragraph 18.

  12. 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.

  13. Art. 3 Directive 96/71/EC.

  14. L. Daniele, “Non-Discriminatory Restrictions to the Free Movement of Persons”, (1997) 22 E.L.Rev. pp. 191–200

    Google Scholar 

  15. Case C-76/90Säger [1991] ECR I-4221

  16. K. Lenaerts andP. Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union, Sweet & Maxwell, 2005, pp. 234–236.

  17. M. De Vos, “European Social Dialogue and European Competition Law: an Inherent Contradiction?”, in:M. De Vos (ed.), A Decade Beyond Maastricht: The European Social Dialogue Revisited, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003, 53–87

    Google Scholar 

  18. Case C-43/93Vander Elst [1994] ECR I-3803

  19. Case C-445/03Commission v. Luxembourg [2004] ECR I-10191.

  20. case-law mention in note 20, above.

  21. inter alia, Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96Arblade and Leloup [1999] ECR I-8453; joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831.

  22. inter alia, Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96Arblade and Leloup [1999] ECR I-8453.

  23. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831; Case C-164/99Portugaia [2002] ECR I-787; compare Case 352/85Bond van Adverteerders and Others [1988] ECR 2085; Case C-398/95SETTG [1997] ECR I-3091.

  24. Case C-445/03Commission v. Luxembourg [2004] ECR 10191.

  25. Case C-60/03Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553, paragraph 41.

  26. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831; Case C-164/99Portugaia [2002] ECR I-787; Case C-60/03Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553.

  27. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831; Case C-164/99Portugaia [2002] ECR I-787; Case C-60/03Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553.

  28. inter alia, Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96Arblade and Leloup [1999] ECR I-8453; Case C-165/98Mazzoleni [2001] I-2189; Case C-164/99Portugaia [2002] ECR I-787; Case C-60/03Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553.

  29. Case C-165/98Mazzoleni [2001] ECR I-2189; Case C-164/99Portugaia [2002] ECR I-787; Case C-60/03Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553.

  30. Case C-341/02Commission v. Germany [2005] ECR I-2733.

  31. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831.

  32. Case C-445/03Commission v. Luxembourg [2004] ECR I-10191.

  33. Case C-445/03Commission v. Luxembourg [2004] ECR I-10191; Case C-244/04Commission v. Germany [2006] ECR I-885

  34. Case C-43/93Vander Elst [1994] ECR I-3803.

  35. Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University Law School, Belgium

    Marc De Vos (Professor of Labour and Employment Law, Member of the Brussels Bar)

  2. Lontings & Partners, Belgium

    Marc De Vos (Professor of Labour and Employment Law, Member of the Brussels Bar)

Authors
  1. Marc De Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Vos, M. Free movement of workers, free movement of services and the posted workers directive: a Bermuda triangle for national labour standards?. ERA Forum 7, 356–370 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857086

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857086

Keywords

Search

Navigation