欧州委VSルクセンブルク事件判決の意味

去る6月19日に、欧州司法裁判所がある判決を下しました。これは極めて重大な意味を持つ判決であるように思われます。

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&newform=newform&Submit=Submit&alljur=alljur&jurcdj=jurcdj&jurtpi=jurtpi&jurtfp=jurtfp&alldocrec=alldocrec&docj=docj&docor=docor&docop=docop&docav=docav&docsom=docsom&docinf=docinf&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&typeord=ALLTYP&allcommjo=allcommjo&affint=affint&affclose=affclose&numaff=&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=LPSE&mots=&resmax=100

事件番号C‑319/06、欧州委員会がルクセンブルク政府を、労働者海外派遣指令の国内法への転換が適切でないとして訴えていた事件です。普通、労働法で国内法への転換が問題になるときは、(イタリアあたりでよくあるように)指令の内容がちゃんと国内法になっていないというかたちで問題になるのですが、この事件の場合は違いました。

本指令の詳細については、拙著等をお読みいただきたいのですが、要は国外からのサービス提供業者に雇われて国内で働く労働者の労働者の労働条件について、法令及び一般的拘束力を有する労働協約を下回らないことを求めた指令です。ですから、法律で最低賃金を決めていないし一般的拘束力制度もないスウェーデンにリトワニアの建設業者がやってきて協約賃金以下で労働者を使っても違反にはならない・・・というのが例のラヴァル事件でしたね。

今回被告になったルクセンブルク政府は、本指令を国内法に転換するときに、第3条第10項の規定に基づき、上乗せ規制をしていました。この根拠規定は：

>公の秩序に関する場合において第1項第1文で規定されたもの以外の事項に関する雇用労働条件

ですが、これを根拠として、

>1.      the written contract of employment or the document established pursuant to [Council] Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32);

>2.      the minimum rates of pay and automatic adjustment to reflect changes in the cost of living;

>8.      the rules on part-time and fixed-term work;

>11.      collective labour agreements;

についても海外派遣労働者にも適用していたのです。これが、指令が求める限度を超えた行き過ぎた国内法であるとして、欧州委員会が訴えたわけです。労働者保護が行き過ぎだといって、欧州委員会が加盟国を訴えた事件であるという点が、本件の興味深い点です。

そして、本判決は全面的に欧州委員会を勝たせています。

>1.      Declares that,

–       by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;

–       by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;

–       by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and

–        by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there,

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

2.      Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

具体的にいうと、法定最低賃金を上回って、生計費に応じた賃金の支払いを求める第2号は指令に反している、そして、一般的拘束力宣言されていないただの素の労働協約なんか「公の秩序」にならないよ、というわけです。

労働側にとっては、ラヴァル事件以来の逆風に対して、国内法でルクセンブルクみたいに守ってくれると有り難かったわけですが、それも駄目だということになるとこれは大変だということになります。

欧州労連は早速こういう批判の声明を出しています。

http://www.etuc.org/a/5136

>The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg today issued its judgement in a case brought to the Court by the European Commission. The ECJ upheld the Commission’s complaint on all points, considering that the way in which Luxembourg has implemented the Posting Directive is an obstacle to the free provision of cross border services. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) considers that this is another hugely problematic judgement.

This judgement is another one in the series Laval and Rüffert, showing that the ECJ and the European Commission are on a consistent track to narrow down the scope for Member States and social partners to ensure a proper functioning of their labour markets when it comes to foreign service providers posting workers to their territory. It confirms the ECJ’s narrow interpretation of the Posting Directive in the previous cases, allowing only for a limited number of host country rules to apply. In this case, the ECJ does not recognize the autonomous right of Luxembourg to define which national public policy provisions are so important, that they should apply to national and foreign service providers on an equal footing, to counter unfair competition on wages and working conditions of workers by cross border service providers.

The ECJ judgement may have an enormous impact, far beyond the Luxembourg borders, as it challenges the scope for Member States - acting in the general interest - to secure decent wages for all workers on its territory, demand respect for collective agreements and devise effective mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of the workers’ rights provided for in the Posting Directive.

John Monks, General Secretary of the ETUC said:

“This is another hugely problematic judgement by the ECJ, asserting the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements. It turns the Posting Directive from an instrument that was intended to protect workers, companies and labour markets against unfair competition on wages and working conditions into an aggressive internal market tool. This is unacceptable and must be repaired as soon as possible by the European legislators, notably by a revision of the Posting Directive to clarify and safeguard its original meaning. In addition, the ETUC urges the European institiutions to adopt a Social Progress protocol at the next Treaty revision, confirming the primary goal of the EU as being the improvement of living and working conditions of its workers and citizens, and not a race to the bottom. After the Irish ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty this is more crucial than ever ”.