«(Employer's contributions – Loyalty stamps – Bad-weather stamps – Freedom to provide services)»

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Obligation for undertakings in the construction industry providing services to pay employer's contributions which duplicate contributions paid in the place of establishment – Not permissible – Justification – None (EC Treaty, Arts 59 and 60) 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.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 28 March 1996 (1)

((Employer's contributions – Loyalty stamps – Bad-weather stamps – Freedom to provide services))

In Case C-272/94,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Correctionnel, Arlon (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against

on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty,

THE COURT (First Chamber),,

composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Tesauro,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Guiot and Climatec SA, represented by André Bosseler, of the Arlon Bar; the Belgian Government, represented by Jan Devadder; the Luxembourg Government, represented by Luc Frieden, Avocat-Avoué, of the Luxembourg Bar; and the Commission, represented by Marie-José Jonczy and Hélène Michard, at the hearing on 28 September 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 October 1995,

gives the following

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunal Correctionnel, Arlon, by judgment of 1 September 1994, hereby rules:

Edward

Jann

Sevón

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 March 1996.

R. Grass

D.A.O. Edward

Registrar

President of the First Chamber