Problemy Transportu i Logistyki

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Problemy Transportu i Logistyki

ISSN: 1644-275X     eISSN: 2353-3005    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ptl.2015.29-12
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / ZN nr 869 PTiL nr 29
Konkurencja i kooperacja w europejskim transporcie samochodowym a niemiecka ustawa MiLoG
(Competition and cooperation in the European road transport in the context of German act of MiLoG)

Authors: Bogusław Liberadzki
Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie
Keywords: Hubert Bronk transit cabotage MiLog delegated employees competition truck drivers international trucking
Data publikacji całości:2015
Page range:34 (147-180)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

The study on application of new German act on minimum rates of pay (‘MiLoG’) to drivers employed by undertakings from outside of Germany, who perform international carriage or cabotage on the German territory (‘Study’) brings conclusions that such territorial application of MiLoG is contrary to certain acts of EU law: – Article 56 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – Article 8 of Rome I Regulation, – Article 1 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, – Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1072 on common access to the international road haulage market. The key finding of the Study is that said drivers perform international carriage or cabotage operations on the German territory only on a temporary basis, so they are not workers posted to Germany. These drivers still remain employed by their original employers, and international travels are core feature of the work they conduct for their employers. Thus, Directive 96/71/EC concerning posting of workers does not apply and contracts of employment of these drivers may be examined only on the grounds of Rome I Regulation. This act lays down specific provisions regarding the freedom of choice of law governing the contract of employment but also certain limits of such freedom, applying in particularly where the work is to be conducted in several member states. Court of Justice examined cases of law applicable to employment contracts of lorry drivers (Case C-29/10 Koelzsch v. Luxembourg ) and seagoing personnel of merchant navy undertakings (Case C-384/10 Voogsgeerd ). Jurisprudence of Court of Justice establishes a sophisticated criteria that has to be examined in each individual case in order to determine the law governing the contract. Therefore, automatic application of MiLoG on territorial basis is contrary to said Regulations and Directive. It is also contrary to the Treaty itself, as it impedes competition on the market and is not proportional. In fact, application of MiLoG on a territorial basis is very likely to have very serious and negative impact on the transport network in EU. Higher costs of labour on the transport corridors running through the German territory may even force out the international carriage from this territory. That would not only raise the overall costs of transport (including raising of CO2 emission) but it would also mean that whole TEN-T network should be reconsidered.

Bibliography

1.Barnard C., EU Employment Law, 4th eds, Oxford University Press 2012.
2.Blanpain R., European Labour Law, 13th rev. ed., Kluwer Law International 2012.
3.Davies P., Posted Workers – Single Market or Protection of National Labour Law Systems?, CMLR 34 (1997).
4.Konwencja brukselska z 27 września 1968 r. o jurysdykcji i wykonywaniu orzeczeń sądowych w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych.
5.Konwencja o prawie właściwym dla zobowiązań umownych otwarta do podpisu w Rzymie 19 czerwca 1980 r.
6.Mindestlohngesetz vom 11 August 2014 (BGBl I S 1348).
7.Pismo Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju RP z 23 grudnia 2014 r.
8.Riesenhuber K.. European Employment Law. A Systematic Exposition, Intersentia 2012.
9.Rozporządzenie nr 1072/2009.
10.Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 44/2001 z 22 grudnia 2000 r. w sprawie jurysdykcji i uznawania orzeczeń sądowych oraz ich wykonywania w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych (Dz.U. 2001, L 12, s. 1). www.berlin.msz.gov.pl.
11.Wyrok ETS w połączonych sprawach od C-307/09 do C-309/09 Vicoplus, pkt 46.
12.Wyrok ETS z 12 września 2013 r. w sprawie C-64/12 Schlecker.
13.Wyrok ETS z 15 grudnia 2011 r. w sprawie C-384/10 Voogsgeerd.
14.Wyrok ETS z 15 marca w sprawie C-29/10 Koelzsch v. Luxembourg [2011] ECR I-000.
15.Wyrok ETS z 19 stycznia 2006 r. w sprawie C-244 Komisja v. Niemcy [2005] ECR I-2733, pkt 61, gdzie odwołano się wprost do wyroku Arblade, pkt 41, a pośrednio – do wyroków w sprawach Seco (pkt 12), Rush Portugesa (pkt 18), Guiot (pkt 12).
16.Wyrok ETS z 25 lipca 1990 r. w sprawie C-76/90 Säger, ECR I-4221, pkt 12–15.
17.Wyrok ETS z 27 marca 1990 r. w sprawie C-113/89 Rush Portuguesa [1990] ECR I-1417.
18.Wyrok ETS z 3 kwietnia 2008 r. w sprawie C-346/06 Rüffert, pkt 11–12.
19.Wyrok ETS w połączonych sprawach C-369/96 i C-376/96 Arblade [1999] ECR I-8453.