Grounds
|
|
1 By order of 31 January 1990, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 February 1990, the Oberlandesgericht Muenchen (Higher Regional Court, Munich) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Articles 7, 55, 56, 59, 86 and 90 of the EEC Treaty,
|
|
|
2 The questions were raised in proceedings brought by Messrs Hoefner and Elser, recruitment consultants, against Macrotron GmbH, a company governed by German law, established in Munich. The dispute concerns fees claimed from that company by Messrs Hoefner and Elser pursuant to a contract under which the latter were to assist in the recruitment of a sales director.
|
1 Ved kendelse af 31. januar 1990, indgaaet til Domstolen den 14. februar s.aa., har Oberlandesgericht Muenchen i henhold til EOEF-Traktatens artikel 177 stillet fire praejudicielle spoergsmaal vedroerende fortolkningen af EOEF-Traktatens artikel 7, 55, 56, 59, 60, 66, 86 og 90.
|
|
3 Employment in Germany is governed by the Arbeitsfoerderungsgesetz (Law on the promotion of employment, hereinafter referred to as "the AFG"). According to Paragraph 1, measures taken under the AFG are intended, within the economic and social policy of the Federal Government, to achieve and maintain a high level of employment, constantly to improve job distribution and thus to promote economic growth. Paragraph 3 entrusts the attainment of the general aim described in Paragraph 2 to the Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit (Federal Office for Employment, hereinafter referred to as "the Bundesanstalt"), whose activity consists essentially in bringing prospective employees into contact with employers and administering unemployment benefits.
|
2 Disse spoergsmaal er blevet rejst under en tvist mellem Hoefner og Elser, som er ansaettelseskonsulenter, og Macrotron GmbH, et tysk selskab med hjemsted i Muenchen. Tvisten vedroerer de honorarer, som Hoefner og Elser har afkraevet selskabet i henhold til en kontrakt, ifoelge hvilken de foerstnaevnte skulle bistaa ved ansaettelsen af en direktoer i selskabets salgstjeneste.
|
|
4 The first of the abovementioned activities, defined in Paragraph 13 of the AFG, is carried out by the Bundesanstalt by virtue of the exclusive right granted to it for that purpose by Paragraph 4 of the AFG (hereinafter referred to as the "exclusive right of employment procurement").
|
3 Beskaeftigelse er i Tyskland omfattet af Arbeitsfoerderungsgesetz (lov om fremme af beskaeftigelse, herefter benaevnt "AFG"). Ifoelge lovens § 1 har de foranstaltninger, der traeffes i henhold til AFG som led i forbundsregeringens oekonomiske og sociale politik, til formaal at opnaa og opretholde et hoejt beskaeftigelsesniveau, bestandigt at forbedre fordelingen af stillinger og saaledes fremme oekonomisk vaekst. Ifoelge artikel 3 overdrages gennemfoerelsen af dette generelle formaal, som naermere beskrives i artikel 2, til Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit (Forbundskontoret for Beskaeftigelse, herefter benaevnt "BA"), hvis virksomhed i det vaesentlige bestaar i dels at bringe beskaeftigelsessoegende i kontakt med arbejdsgivere og dels i at forvalte arbejdsloeshedsydelser.
|
|
5 However, Paragraph 23 of the AFG provides for the possibility of a derogation from the exclusive right of employment procurement. The Bundesanstalt may, in exceptional cases and after consulting the workers' and employers' associations concerned, entrust other institutions or persons with employment procurement for certain professions or occupations. However, their activities remain subject to the supervision of the Bundesanstalt.
|
4 Den foerste af de naevnte virksomheder, som er defineret i AFG' s § 13, udoeves af BA med eneret, som er indroemmet BA i henhold til AFG § 4 (herefter benaevnt "eneret til arbejdsanvisning").
|
|
6 The Bundesanstalt must, by virtue of Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the AFG, exercise its exclusive right of employment procurement impartially and without charging a fee. Paragraph 167 of the AFG, contained in the sixth title thereof, which deals with the financial resources enabling the Bundesanstalt to carry out its activities on that basis, allows the Bundesanstalt to collect contributions from employers and workers.
|
5 AFG' s § 23 indeholder dog en mulighed for at fravige eneretten til arbejdsanvisning. BA kan nemlig i undtagelsestilfaelde og efter hoering af de paagaeldende arbejdstager- og arbejdsgiverorganisationer for visse fags vedkommende overdrage arbejdsanvisning til andre institutioner eller personer. Deres virksomhed er dog undergivet BA' s kontrol.
|
|
7 The eighth title of the AFG contains provisions concerning penalties and fines. Paragraph 228 provides that fines may be imposed for the conduct of any employment procurement activity in breach of the AFG.
|
6 Ifoelge AFG' s §§ 20 og 21 skal BA udoeve sin eneret til arbejdsanvisning upartisk og gratis. AFG' s kapitel 6, som vedroerer de oekonomiske midler, der goer det muligt for BA at udoeve sin virksomhed paa denne maade, bemyndiger i § 167 BA til at opkraeve bidrag fra arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere.
|
|
8 Notwithstanding the Bundesanstalt' s exclusive right to undertake employment procurement, specific recruitment and employment procurement activity has developed in Germany for business executives. That activity is carried on by recruitment consultants who assist undertakings regarding personnel policy.
|
7 AFG' s kapitel 8 indeholder bestemmelser om sanktioner og boede. Dens § 228 bestemmer, at udoevelse af arbejdsanvisningsvirksomhed i strid med AFG' s bestemmelser straffes med boede.
|
|
9 The Bundesanstalt reacted to that development in two ways. First, in 1954 it decided to set up a special agency for the placement of highly qualified executives in management posts in undertakings. Secondly, it published circulars in which it declared that it was prepared, under an agreement between the Bundesanstalt, the Federal Ministry of Employment and several professional associations, to tolerate certain activities on the part of recruitment consultants concerning business executives. That tolerant attitude is also apparent in the fact that the Bundesanstalt has not systematically invoked Paragraph 228 of the AFG and prosecuted recruitment consultants for activities undertaken by them.
|
8 Trods BA' s eneret til arbejdsanvisning har der i Tyskland udviklet sig en saerlig virksomhed med formidling og anvisning af virksomhedsledere. Denne virksomhed udoeves af ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer, som bistaar virksomhederne i deres personalepolitik.
|
|
10 Whilst the activities of recruitment consultants are thus to some extent tolerated by the Bundesanstalt, the fact remains that any legal act which infringes a statutory prohibition is void under Paragraph 134 of the German Civil Code and, according to German case-law, that prohibition applies to employment procurement activities carried out in breach of the AFG.
|
9 BA har reageret paa denne udvikling paa to maader. Den har for det foerste i 1954 besluttet at oprette et saerligt kontor til anvisning af hoejt kvalificerede personer til ledelsesfunktioner i virksomheder. For det andet har det udsendt rundskrivelser, hvori det erklaerede sig villig til som led i en aftale indgaaet mellem BA, forbundsarbejdsministeren og en raekke faglige organisationer at tolerere visse former for ansaettelsesraadgivningsvirksomhed med hensyn til virksomhedsledere. Denne tolerante holdning afspejles ligeledes af, at BA ikke systematisk har indledt retsforfoelgning i henhold til AFG' s § 228 af ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer paa grund af deres virksomhed.
|
|
11 The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the compatibility of the recruitment contract concluded between Messrs Hoefner and Elser, on the one hand, and Macrotron, on the other, with the AFG. As required by the contract, Messrs Hoefner and Elser presented Macrotron with a candidate for the post of sales director. He was a German national who, according to the recruitment consultants, was perfectly suitable for the post in question. However, Macrotron decided not to appoint that candidate and refused to pay the fees stipulated in the contract.
|
10 Selv om ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaers virksomhed saaledes i et vist omfang tolereres af BA, staar det dog fast, at enhver retshandel, som er i strid med et lovbestemt forbud, er ugyldig i henhold til § 134 i den tyske Buergerliches Gesetzbuch, og at dette forbud ifoelge de tyske domstoles praksis ogsaa omfatter arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed, der udoeves i strid med AFG' s bestemmelser.
|
|
12 Messrs Hoefner and Elser then commenced proceedings against Macrotron before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Munich I in order to obtain payment of the agreed fees. The Landgericht dismissed their claim by judgment of 27 October 1987. The plaintiffs appealed to the Oberlandesgericht, Munich, which considered that the contract at issue was void by virtue of Paragraph 134 of the German Civil Code (Bundesgesetzbuch), since it was in breach of Paragraph 13 of the AFG. That court nevertheless considered that the outcome of the dispute ultimately depended on an interpretation of Community law and it therefore submitted the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
|
11 Tvisten i hovedsagen drejer sig om, hvorvidt en kontrakt om arbejdsformidling, som er indgaaet mellem Hoefner og Elser paa den ene side og Macrotron paa den anden side, er forenelig med AFG' s bestemmelser. I henhold til deres opgave ifoelge kontrakten praesenterede Hoefner og Elser selskabet Macrotron for en ansoeger til stillingen som direktoer for dets salgstjeneste. Det drejede sig om en tysk statsborger, som ifoelge ansaettelseskonsulenterne var fuldt ud egnet til at beklaede den paagaeldende stilling. Macrotron besluttede imidlertid ikke at ansaette denne ansoeger og naegtede at betale de i kontrakten fastsatte honorarer.
|
|
"1. Does the provision of business executives by personnel consultants constitute a service within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty and is the provision of executives bound up with the exercise of official authority within the meaning of Articles 66 and 55 of the EEC Treaty?
|
12 Hoefner og Elser indstaevnede derefter Macrotron for Landgericht Muenchen I med paastand om betaling af de aftalte honorarer. Landgericht frifandt sagsoegte ved dom af 27. oktober 1987. Sagsoegerne appellerede denne dom til Oberlandesgericht Muenchen, som statuerede, at den omtvistede kontrakt var ugyldig i henhold til Buergerliches Gesetzbuch § 134, fordi den var i strid med AFG' s § 13. Denne retsinstans fandt dog, at tvistens udfald til syvende og sidst afhang af fortolkningen af faellesskabsretten, og stillede derfor foelgende praejudicielle spoergsmaal:
|
|
2. Does the absolute prohibition on the provision of business executives by German personnel consultants, laid down in Paragraphs 4 and 13 of the Arbeitsfoerderungsgesetz, constitute a professional rule justified by the public interest or a monopoly, justified on grounds of public policy and public security (Articles 66 and 56(1) of the EEC Treaty)?
|
"1) Er formidling af virksomhedsledere gennem ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer en tjenesteydelse som omhandlet i EOEF-Traktatens artikel 60, stk. 1, og er denne formidling af ledere forbundet med udoevelse af offentlig myndighed som omhandlet i EOEF-Traktatens artikel 66, jf. artikel 55?
|
|
3. Can a German personnel consultant rely on Articles 7 and 59 of the EEC Treaty in connection with the provision of German nationals to German undertakings?
|
2) Er det fuldstaendige forbud i §§ 4 og 13 i Arbeitsfoerderungsgesetz (den tyske lov om fremme af beskaeftigelse) mod formidling af virksomhedsledere gennem tyske ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer en erhvervsreguleringsbestemmelse, der er berettiget af hensynet til almenvellet, eller et monopol, der er berettiget af hensynet til den offentlige orden og sikkerhed (EOEF-Traktatens artikel 66, jf. artikel 56, stk. 1)?
|
|
4. In connection with the provision of business executives is the Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [Federal Employment Office] subject to the provisions of the EEC Treaty, and in particular Article 59 thereof, in the light of Article 90(2) of the EEC Treaty, and does the establishment of a monopoly over the provision of business executives constitute an abuse of a dominant position on the market within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty?"
|
3) Kan et tysk ansaettelseskonsulentfirma ved formidling af tyske statsborgere til tyske virksomheder paaberaabe sig EOEF-Traktatens artikel 7 og 59?
|
|
13 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
|
4) Er Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit ved formidling af virksomhedsledere, naar henses til EOEF-Traktatens artikel 90, stk. 2, bundet af EOEF-Traktatens bestemmelser, navnlig EOEF-Traktatens artikel 59, og er en monopolisering af formidling af virksomhedsledere misbrug af en dominerende stilling paa markedet i EOEF-Traktatens artikel 86' s forstand?"
|
|
14 In its first three questions and the part of its fourth question concerning Article 59 of the Treaty, the national court seeks essentially to determine whether the Treaty provisions on the free movement of services preclude a statutory prohibition of the procurement of employment for business executives by private recruitment consultancy companies. The fourth question is concerned essentially with the interpretation of Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty, having regard to the competitive relationship existing between those companies and a public employment agency enjoying exclusive rights in respect of employment procurement.
|
13 Vedroerende de relevante retsregler og hovedsagens faktiske omstaendigheder, retsforhandlingernes forloeb og de skriftlige indlaeg, der er indgivet for Domstolen, henvises i oevrigt til retsmoederapporten. Disse omstaendigheder omtales derfor kun i det foelgende i det omfang det er noedvendigt for forstaaelsen af Domstolens argumentation.
|
|
15 The latter question raises the problem of the scope of that exclusive right and, therefore, of the statutory prohibition of employment procurement by private companies of the kind at issue in the main proceedings. It is therefore appropriate to consider that question first.
|
14 Med de tre foerste spoergsmaal og den del af det fjerde spoergsmaal, der vedroerer Traktatens artikel 59, oensker den forelaeggende ret i det vaesentlige at faa oplyst, om Traktatens bestemmelser om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser er til hinder for et lovbestemt forbud mod, at private ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer formidler ansaettelse af virksomhedsledere. Det fjerde spoergsmaal angaar hovedsagelig fortolkningen af Traktatens artikel 86 og 90 med henblik paa disse firmaers konkurrenceforhold til et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor, som har en eneret til arbejdsanvisning.
|
|
The interpretation of Articles 86 and 90 of the EEC Treaty
|
15 Det sidstnaevnte spoergsmaal rejser problemet om denne enerets omfang og dermed om det lovbestemte forbud mod formidling af virksomhedsledere gennem private selskaber som det, hovedsagen drejer sig om. Det vil derfor vaere at behandle foerst.
|
|
16 In its fourth question, the national court asks more specifically whether the monopoly of employment procurement in respect of business executives granted to a public employment agency constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86, having regard to Article 90(2). In order to answer that question, it is necessary to examine that exclusive right also in the light of Article 90(1), which is concerned with the conditions that the Member States must observe when they grant special or exclusive rights. Moreover, the observations submitted to the Court relate to both Article 90(1) and Article 90(2) of the Treaty.
|
Fortolkningen af EOEF-Traktatens artikel 86 og 90
|
|
17 According to the appellants in the main proceedings, an agency such as the Bundesanstalt is both a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 90(1) and an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Treaty. The Bundesanstalt is therefore, they maintain, subject to the competition rules to the extent to which the application thereof does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to it, and it does not in the present case. The appellants also claim that the action taken by the Bundesanstalt, which extended its statutory monopoly over employment procurement to activities for which the establishment of a monopoly is not in the public interest, constitutes an abuse within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty. They also consider that any Member State which makes such an abuse possible is in breach of Article 90(1) and of the general principle whereby the Member States must refrain from taking any measure which could destroy the effectiveness of the Community competition rules.
|
16 Med sit fjerde spoergsmaal oensker den forelaeggende ret oplyst, om det monopol paa formidling af virksomhedsledere, som er forbeholdt et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor, er misbrug af en dominerende stilling som omhandlet i artikel 86, naar henses til bestemmelserne i artikel 90, stk. 2. For hensigtsmaessigt at kunne besvare dette spoergsmaal findes det noedvendigt ogsaa at undersoege denne eneret paa baggrund af artikel 90, stk. 1, der omhandler de betingelser, som medlemsstaterne skal overholde, naar de indroemmer saerlige eller eksklusive rettigheder. De indlaeg, der er indgivet for Domstolen, vedroerer i oevrigt saavel stk. 1 som stk. 2 i Traktatens artikel 90.
|
|
18 The Commission takes a somewhat different view. The maintenance of a monopoly on executive recruitment constitutes, in its view, an infringement of Article 90(1) read in conjunction with Article 86 of the Treaty where the grantee of the monopoly is not willing or able to carry out that task fully, according to the demand existing on the market, and provided that such conduct is liable to affect trade between Member States.
|
17 Ifoelge sagsoegerne i hovedsagen er et kontor som BA baade en offentlig virksomhed som omhandlet i artikel 90, stk. 1, og en virksomhed, der har faaet overdraget at udfoere tjenesteydelser af almindelig oekonomisk interesse som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 90, stk. 2. BA er derfor omfattet af konkurrencereglerne i det omfang, anvendelse af disse regler ikke umuliggoer den saerlige opgave, som er overdraget det, hvilket ikke er tilfaeldet her. Sagsoegerne i hovedsagen har ligeledes anfoert, at BA, som udstrakte sit lovbestemte monopol paa arbejdsformidling til virksomhed, hvor monopolet ikke var berettiget af almene hensyn, handlede paa en maade, der maa anses for misbrug som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 86. De mener desuden, at en medlemsstat, som har gjort et saadant misbrug muligt, har handlet i strid med artikel 90, stk. 1, og med det almindelige princip, hvorefter medlemsstaterne afholder sig fra at traeffe foranstaltninger, der kan beroeve Faellesskabets konkurrenceregler deres tilsigtede virkning.
|
|
19 The respondent in the main proceedings and the German Government consider on the other hand that the activities of an employment agency do not fall within the scope of the competition rules if they are carried out by a public undertaking. The German Government states in that regard that a public employment agency cannot be classified as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty, in so far as the employment procurement services are provided free of charge. The fact that those activities are financed mainly by contributions from employers and employees does not, in its view, mean that they are not free, since those contributions are general and have no link with each specific service provided.
|
18 Kommissionen har fremfoert et andet synspunkt. Opretholdelse af et monopol paa formidling af virksomhedsledere er efter dens opfattelse en tilsidesaettelse af Traktatens artikel 90, stk. 1, sammenholdt med dens artikel 86, naar indehaveren af monopolet ikke er villig eller egnet til fuldt ud at varetage denne virksomhed i overensstemmelse med den efterspoergsel, som findes paa markedet, og naar denne adfaerd kan paavirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstater.
|
|
20 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to establish whether a public employment agency such as the Bundesanstalt may be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
|
19 Sagsoegte i hovedsagen og den tyske regering mener derimod, at den virksomhed, der udoeves af et arbejdsanvisningskontor, ikke laengere henhoerer under konkurrencereglernes anvendelsesomraade, naar den udoeves af et offentligt organ. Den tyske regering har i denne forbindelse anfoert, at et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor ikke kan betegnes som en virksomhed som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 86, idet arbejdsformidlingen udfoeres gratis. Den omstaendighed, at denne virksomhed hovedsaglig finansieres af bidrag fra arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere, aendrer efter dens opfattelse intet i, at den er gratis, idet der er tale om almindelige bidrag, som ikke har nogen forbindelse med en konkret udfoert tjenesteydelse.
|
|
21 It must be observed, in the context of competition law, first that the concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed and, secondly, that employment procurement is an economic activity.
|
20 I betragtning af det anfoerte maa det undersoeges, om et offentligt arbejdsanvisningskontor som BA kan anses for en virksomhed i den i EOEF-Traktatens artikel 85 og 86 forudsatte betydning.
|
|
22 The fact that employment procurement activities are normally entrusted to public agencies cannot affect the economic nature of such activities. Employment procurement has not always been, and is not necessarily, carried out by public entities. That finding applies in particular to executive recruitment.
|
21 Herved bemaerkes, at inden for konkurrenceretten omfatter begrebet virksomhed enhver enhed, som udoever oekonomisk virksomhed, uanset denne enheds retlige status og dens finansieringsmaade, og at arbejdsanvisning er en oekonomisk virksomhed.
|
|
23 It follows that an entity such as a public employment agency engaged in the business of employment procurement may be classified as an undertaking for the purpose of applying the Community competition rules.
|
22 Den omstaendighed, at arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed normalt er overdraget offentlige kontorer, kan ikke paavirke denne virksomheds oekonomiske karakter. Arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed har ikke altid vaeret og bliver ikke noedvendigvis udoevet af offentlige enheder. Denne konstatering gaelder navnlig for formidling af virksomhedsledere.
|
|
24 It must be pointed out that a public employment agency which is entrusted, under the legislation of a Member State, with the operation of services of general economic interest, such as those envisaged in Article 3 of the AFG, remains subject to the competition rules pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Treaty unless and to the extent to which it is shown that their application is incompatible with the discharge of its duties (see judgment in Case 155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR 409).
|
23 Heraf foelger, at en enhed som et offentligt arbejdsanvisningskontor, der udoever arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed, kan betegnes som virksomhed med henblik paa anvendelse af faellesskabskonkurrencereglerne.
|
|
25 As regards the manner in which a public employment agency enjoying an exclusive right of employment procurement conducts itself in relation to executive recruitment undertaken by private recruitment consultancy companies, it must be stated that the application of Article 86 of the Treaty cannot obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to that agency in so far as the latter is manifestly not in a position to satisfy demand in that area of the market and in fact allows its exclusive rights to be encroached on by those companies.
|
24 Det bemaerkes, at et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor, som i henhold til en medlemsstats lovgivning har faaet overdraget at udfoere tjenesteydelser af almindelig oekonomisk interesse, som f.eks. de i AFG § 3 omhandlede, i henhold til Traktatens artikel 90, stk. 2, fortsat er omfattet af konkurrencereglerne, naar det ikke er paavist, at anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser er uforenelig med udoevelsen af dets opgave (jf. dom af 30.1.1974, sag 155/73, Sacchi, Sml. s. 409, praemis 15).
|
|
26 Whilst it is true that Article 86 concerns undertakings and may be applied within the limits laid down by Article 90(2) to public undertakings or undertakings vested with exclusive rights or specific rights, the fact nevertheless remains that the Treaty requires the Member States not to take or maintain in force measures which could destroy the effectiveness of that provision (see judgment in Case 13/77 Inno [1977] ECR 2115, paragraphs 31 and 32). Article 90(1) in fact provides that the Member States are not to enact or maintain in force, in the case of public undertakings and the undertakings to which they grant special or exclusive rights, any measure contrary to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular those provided for in Articles 85 to 94.
|
25 Med hensyn til den adfaerd, der udvises af et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor, som har en eneret til arbejdsformidling, i forhold til formidling af virksomhedsledere, som udoeves af private ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer, bemaerkes, at anvendelsen af Traktatens artikel 86 ikke er til hinder for opfyldelsen af den saerlige opgave, der er overdraget dette kontor, naar dette aabenbart ikke er i stand til at daekke efterspoergslen paa markedet, og faktisk tolererer, at disse firmaer goer indgreb i dets eneret.
|
|
27 Consequently, any measure adopted by a Member State which maintains in force a statutory provision that creates a situation in which a public employment agency cannot avoid infringing Article 86 is incompatible with the rules of the Treaty.
|
26 Skoent artikel 86 omhandler virksomheder og inden for de i artikel 90, stk. 2, fastsatte graenser kan anvendes paa offentlige virksomheder eller virksomheder, der har saerlige eller eksklusive rettigheder, staar det dog fast, at Traktaten paalaegger medlemsstaterne ikke at indfoere eller opretholde foranstaltninger, som kan ophaeve den tilsigtede virkning af denne bestemmelse (jf. dom af 16.11.1977, sag 13/77, Inno, Sml. s. 2115, praemis 31 og 32). Artikel 90, stk. 1, bestemmer nemlig, at medlemsstaterne, for saa vidt angaar offentlige virksomheder og virksomheder, som de indroemmer saerlige eller eksklusive rettigheder, afstaar fra at traeffe eller opretholde foranstaltninger, som er i strid med Traktatens bestemmelser, navnlig med artikel 85-94.
|
|
28 It must be remembered, first, that an undertaking vested with a legal monopoly may be regarded as occupying a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty (see judgment in Case 311/84 CBEM [1985] 3261) and that the territory of a Member State, to which that monopoly extends, may constitute a substantial part of the common market (judgment in Case 322/81 Michelin [1983] ECR 3461, paragraph 28).
|
27 Foelgelig er enhver foranstaltning truffet af en medlemsstat, hvorved der opretholdes en lovbestemmelse, der skaber en situation, i hvilken et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor noedvendigvis foranlediges til at handle i strid med ordlyden af artikel 86, uforenelig med Traktatens bestemmelser.
|
|
29 Secondly, the simple fact of creating a dominant position of that kind by granting an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 90(1) is not as such incompatible with Article 86 of the Treaty (see Case 311/84 CBEM, above, paragraph 17). A Member State is in breach of the prohibition contained in those two provisions only if the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the exclusive right granted to it, cannot avoid abusing its dominant position.
|
28 I denne forbindelse bemaerkes for det foerste, at en virksomhed, som har et lovbestemt monopol, kan anses for at indtage en dominerende stilling som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 86 (jf. dom af 3.10.1985, sag 311/84, CBEM, Sml. s. 3261, praemis 16), og at en medlemsstats omraade, som dette monopol omfatter, kan udgoere en vaesentlig del af det faelles marked (jf. dom af 9.11.1983, sag 322/81, Michelin, Sml. s. 3461, praemis 28).
|
|
30 Pursuant to Article 86(b), such an abuse may in particular consist in limiting the provision of a service, to the prejudice of those seeking to avail themselves of it.
|
29 Det bemaerkes for det andet, at den blotte omstaendighed, at der skabes en saadan dominerende stilling ved tildeling af en eneret som omhandlet i artikel 90, stk. 1, ikke i sig selv er uforenelig med Traktatens artikel 86 (jf. dom af 3.10.1985, CBEM, praemis 17). En medlemsstat overtraeder nemlig kun forbuddene i disse to bestemmelser, saafremt den paagaeldende virksomhed ved den blotte udoevelse af den eneret, som er indroemmet den, foranlediges til at udnytte sin dominerende stilling paa en maade, der er udtryk for misbrug.
|
|
31 A Member State creates a situation in which the provision of a service is limited when the undertaking to which it grants an exclusive right extending to executive recruitment activities is manifestly not in a position to satisfy the demand prevailing on the market for activities of that kind and when the effective pursuit of such activities by private companies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of a statutory provision under which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of that prohibition renders the contracts concerned void.
|
30 Ifoelge Traktatens artikel 86, stk. 2, litra b), kan et saadant misbrug isaer bestaa i en begraensning af ydelsen til skade for personer, der efterspoerger den paagaeldende tjenesteydelse.
|
|
32 It must be observed, thirdly, that the responsibility imposed on a Member State by virtue of Articles 86 and 90(1) of the Treaty is engaged only if the abusive conduct on the part of the agency concerned is liable to affect trade between Member States. That does not mean that the abusive conduct in question must actually have affected such trade. It is sufficient to establish that that conduct is capable of having such an effect (see Case 322/81 Michelin, above, paragraph 104).
|
31 En medlemsstat skaber imidlertid en situation, i hvilken ydelsen er begraenset, naar det organ, som den har indroemmet en eneret, som omfatter formidling af erhvervsledere, aabenbart ikke er i stand til at daekke efterspoergslen paa markedet for denne form for tjenesteydelser, og naar private selskabers faktiske udoevelse af en saadan formidling umuliggoeres af, at der opretholdes en lovbestemmelse, som forbyder denne formidlingsvirksomhed og bestemmer, at kontrakter indgaaet som led heri er ugyldige.
|
|
33 A potential effect of that kind on trade between Member States arises in particular where executive recruitment by private companies may extend to the nationals or to the territory of other Member States.
|
32 For det tredje bemaerkes, at det ansvar, der paahviler en medlemsstat i henhold til Traktatens artikel 86 og 90, stk. 1, kun paadrages, saafremt det paagaeldende kontors misbrug kan paavirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne. Denne betingelse er ikke kun opfyldt, hvis den adfaerd, der maa karakteriseres som et misbrug, faktisk har paavirket handelen. Det er tilstraekkeligt, at det bevises, at den omhandlede adfaerd kan have en saadan virkning (jf. dom af 9.11.1983, Michelin, praemis 104).
|
|
34 In view of the foregoing considerations, it must be stated in reply to the fourth question that a public employment agency engaged in employment procurement activities is subject to the prohibition contained in Article 86 of the Treaty, so long as the application of that provision does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to it. A Member State which has conferred an exclusive right to carry on that activity upon the public employment agency is in breach of Article 90(1) of the Treaty where it creates a situation in which that agency cannot avoid infringing Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in particular, where the following conditions are satisfied:
|
33 En saadan potentiel virkning paa samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne bestaar bl.a., naar private selskabers virksomhed med formidling af virksomhedsledere kan omfatte andre medlemsstaters statsborgere eller omraader.
|
|
- the exclusive right extends to executive recruitment activities;
|
34 Paa baggrund af samtlige de foregaaende betragtninger maa det fjerde praejudicielle spoergsmaal besvares med, at et offentligt arbejdsformidlingskontor er omfattet af forbuddet i Traktatens artikel 86, i det omfang anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse ikke hindrer opfyldelsen af den saerlige opgave, som er betroet det. Den medlemsstat, som har overdraget det en eneret til arbejdsformidling, tilsidesaetter Traktatens artikel 90, stk. 1, naar den skaber en situation, hvor det offentlige arbejdsformidlingskontor noedvendigvis foranlediges til at overtraede Traktatens artikel 86. Dette er navnlig tilfaeldet, naar foelgende betingelser er opfyldt:
|
|
- the public employment agency is manifestly incapable of satisfying demand prevailing on the market for such activities;
|
- Eneretten omfatter formidling af virksomhedsledere.
|
|
- the actual pursuit of those activities by private recruitment consultants is rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of a statutory provision under which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of that prohibition renders the contracts concerned void;
|
- Det offentlige arbejdsformidlingskontor er aabenbart ikke i stand til at daekke efterspoergslen paa markedet for saadanne tjenesteydelser.
|
|
- the activities in question may extend to the nationals or to the territory of other Member States.
|
- Den faktiske udoevelse af arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed, som udoeves af private ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer, umuliggoeres af, at der opretholdes en lovbestemmelse, som forbyder denne form for virksomhed og bestemmer, at aftaler herom er ugyldige.
|
|
The interpretation of Article 59 of the EEC Treaty
|
- Den paagaeldende arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed kan udstraekkes til andre medlemsstaters statsborgere eller omraader.
|
|
35 In its third question, the national court seeks essentially to determine whether a recruitment consultancy company in a Member State may rely on Articles 7 and 59 of the Treaty regarding the procurement of nationals of that Member State for posts in undertakings in the same State.
|
Fortolkningen af EOEF-Traktatens artikel 59
|
|
36 It must be recalled, in the first place, that Article 59 of the EEC Treaty guarantees, as regards the freedom to provide services, the application of the principle laid down in Article 7 of that Treaty. It follows that where rules are compatible with Article 59 they are also compatible with Article 7 (judgment in Case 90/76 Van Ameyde [1977] ECR 1091, paragraph 27).
|
35 Med sit tredje spoergsmaal oensker den forelaeggende ret oplyst, om et ansaettelseskonsulentfirma i en medlemsstat kan paaberaabe sig Traktatens artikel 7 og 59 med henblik paa anvisning af arbejde til medlemsstatens statsborgere i virksomheder i samme stat.
|
|
37 It must then be pointed out that the Court has consistently held that the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State and that the question whether that is the case depends on findings of fact which are for the national court to make (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 52/79 Debauve ]1980] ECR 833, paragraph 9).
|
36 Indledningsvis bemaerkes, at Traktatens artikel 59 paa omraadet for fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser garanterer anvendelse af det princip, der er fastslaaet i Traktatens artikel 7. Heraf foelger derfor, at naar en lovgivning er forenelig med artikel 59, er den ogsaa forenelig med artikel 7 (jf. dom af 9.6.1977, sag 90/76, Van Ameyde, Sml. s. 1091, praemis 27).
|
|
38 The facts, as established by the national court in its order for reference, show that in the present case the dispute is between German recruitment consultants and a German undertaking concerning the recruitment of a German national.
|
37 Dernaest bemaerkes, at ifoelge fast retspraksis kan Traktatens bestemmelser om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke anvendes paa aktiviteter, hvis samtlige deres relevante elementer findes inden for en enkelt medlemsstat, og at spoergsmaalet, om dette er tilfaeldet, afhaenger af konstateringer af faktiske forhold, som det tilkommer den nationale ret at foretage (jf. bl.a. dom af 18.3.1980, sag 52/79, Debauve, Sml. s. 833, praemis 9).
|
|
39 Such a situation displays no link with any of the situations envisaged by Community law. That finding cannot be invalidated by the fact that a contract concluded between the recruitment consultants and the undertaking concerned includes the theoretical possibility of seeking German candidates resident in other Member States or nationals of other Member States.
|
38 Det fremgaar af sagens omstaendigheder, saaledes som de er fastslaaet af den nationale ret i dens forelaeggelseskendelse, at hovedsagen vedroerer en tvist mellem tyske ansaettelseskonsulenter og en tysk virksomhed vedroerende ansaettelse af en tysk statsborger.
|
|
40 It must therefore be stated in reply to the third question that a recruitment consultant in a Member State may not rely on Articles 7 and 59 of the Treaty regarding the procurement of nationals of that Member State for posts in undertakings in the same State.
|
39 En saadan situation har intet tilknytningsmoment til nogen af de situationer, der omhandles i faellesskabsretten. Dette kan ikke aendres af, at en kontrakt indgaaet mellem ansaettelseskonsulenterne og virksomheden indeholder en teoretisk mulighed for, at der kan soeges efter tyske ansoegere, som er bosat i andre medlemsstater, eller statsborgere i disse stater.
|
|
41 In view of the above answer, it is unnecessary to consider the first two questions and the part of the fourth question concerned with the question whether Article 59 of the Treaty precludes a statutory prohibition of the pursuit, by private recruitment consultancy companies in a Member State, of the business of executive recruitment.
|
40 Det tredje spoergsmaal vil derfor vaere at besvare med, at et ansaettelseskonsulentfirma i en medlemsstat ikke kan paaberaabe sig Traktatens artikel 7 og 59 med henblik paa anvisning af arbejde til medlemsstatens statsborgere i virksomheder i samme stat.
|
|
|
41 Henset til denne besvarelse findes det unoedvendigt at behandle de to foerste spoergsmaal og den del af det fjerde spoergsmaal, som gaar ud paa, om Traktatens artikel 59 er til hinder for et lovbestemt forbud mod, at private ansaettelseskonsulentfirmaer i en medlemsstat udoever formidling af virksomhedsledere.
|