Practices contrary to Community law. The Court observed that the certificate delivered by the Austrian authorities pursued the legitimate purpose of avoiding the abusive exploitation of workers from third countries. However, it contended, by requiring the systematic application of Austrian work conditions and terms of employment, such a procedure does not take account of the measures for protecting workers to which the company making the cross-border posting is bound in its home country, notably in respect of work conditions and remuneration. The systematic character of such procedures, inasmuch as it prevents case-by-case appraisal, does not respect the jurisprudence of the Court established by the decisions Finalarte in 2001 and Portugaia Construçöes in 2002, according to which a national law may restrict the Community principle of freedom to provide service if it lays out a protection which posted workers do not enjoy otherwise ( by virtue of the legislation of the home country). The Court also considered that the requirement of a year of regular and stable employment in the company with a permanent contract is disproportionate to the guarantee of protection.
the principle of free service made by the Commission and the defence of the Austrian government justifying such practices for the imperative reason of worker protection. The decision followed the recommendations of the advocate general Léger in his conclusions ( v. our article n° 06176).
Practices contrary to Community law. The Court observed that the certificate delivered by the Austrian authorities pursued the legitimate purpose of avoiding the abusive exploitation of workers from third count
…Do you have information to share with us?