Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (...

Facts

• Laval un Partneri Ltd, a Latvian construction company, posted workers from Latvia to Sweden for a construction project.
• Swedish trade unions, including the Swedish Building Workers’ Union and the Swedish Electricians’ Union, initiated industrial action such as a blockade after Laval declined to sign a collective agreement on working conditions and minimum wages.
• The collective agreement sought by the unions went beyond Sweden's statutory minimum requirements for posted workers.
• The industrial action prevented Laval from completing the building project, ultimately leading to the company’s insolvency.

Issues

1. Whether industrial action by Swedish trade unions, aiming to impose conditions beyond national law, constituted a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 49 TFEU.
2. Whether the right to collective action as a fundamental right could justify such restrictions in light of Community law.
3. Whether the proportionality principle limited the extent to which trade union actions may restrict cross-border service provision.

Decision

• The ECJ found that the trade unions’ industrial action amounted to a restriction on the freedom to provide services protected by Article 49 TFEU.
• The right to collective action, including the right to strike, was acknowledged as fundamental, but its exercise must comply with the principles of Community law.
• The imposition of collective bargaining terms exceeding statutory requirements was considered disproportionate and thus not justified under EU law.
• The industrial action was declared incompatible with Article 49 TFEU because it hindered the free movement of services.

Legal Principles

• The principle of proportionality is critical in balancing the right to collective action with the free movement of services within the EU.
• Member States may protect posted workers, but only to the extent set by national law and without unlawfully restricting service provision.
• Collective action imposing terms beyond what national law requires constitutes a restriction on the free movement of services.
• National regulations and trade union activity must respect Article 49 TFEU and may not unjustifiably obstruct the provision of cross-border services.

Conclusion

The ECJ’s judgment in Laval un Partneri clarified that industrial action imposing requirements beyond national minimums on foreign service providers is a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of services, setting an important precedent on the limits of collective action within the EU internal market.