Tevfik Isbir vs DB Services GmbH (C-522/12) A Presentation by Theresa Tilger

Table of Content The facts of the case Legal context Question to the ECJ Jurisdiction of the Court Response of the ECJ Situation in Germany

The facts of the case (I) Mr Isbir has been working for DB Services since Received an hourly remuneration of 7,56€ (until ) and 7,90€ (from ) Applied for more favorable provisions establishing the hourly wages of the building cleaning sector

The facts of the case (II) DB Services did not dispute the binding to those agreements considered that Mr Isbir had already received much more than the minimum hourly wage – Had received a lump sum payment of 750€ in total & a contribution to the capital formation

Legal context (I) European Union Law – § 1 and 8 of Art. 3 Directive 96/71 `1. Member States shall ensure that, whatever the law applicableto the employment relationship, the undertakings referred to in Article 1 (1) guarantee workers posted to their territory the terms and conditions of employment covering the following matters, which in the Member State where the work is carried out, are laid down: - by law, regulation or administrative provision, and/or - by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable within the meaning of paragraph 8, in so far as the concern the activities referred to in the Annex: c) The minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates; this point does not apply to supplementary occupational retirement pension schemes; `8. „Collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable“ means collective agreements or arbitration awards which must be observed by all undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or industry concerned.

Legal Context (II) German Law – Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz (AEntG) – Fünftes Vermögensbildungsgesetz (5. VermBG) – Collective Agreements DB Services Nord collective wage agreement Gebäudereinigung 2004 collective wage agreement Mindestlohn Gebäudereinigung collective agreement

Question to the ECJ Is Art. 3 (1) c of Directice 96/71 to be interpreted as precluding the inclusion in the minimum wage of elements of remuneration such as those at issue in the main proceedings and which concern two lump sum payments and a capital formation contribution?

Jurisdiction of the Court Federal Labour Court needs to assess the precise scope of such a reference to EU law, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice being confined to considering provisions of that law only  Court has jurisdiction to rule on the questions submitted by the Federal Labour Court

Response of the ECJ (I) Directive 96/71 does not itself provide any definition of minimum wage Only elements of remuneration which do not alter the relationship between the service provided and the consideration that he receives in return can be taken into account in determining the minimum wage

Response of the ECJ (II) Lump sum payments appear as consideration for the usual work of the wokers concerned, as provided for in a collective agreement of universal application Capital formation contribution is not separable from the work done but it is distinguishable from the salary itself

Situation in Germany From minimum wage of 8,50€ per hour MiLoG is in the context of European Law as it is in part the implementation of the Directive 96/71 Federal Government of Germany thinks that ECJ already clarified which kind of wage elements are part of the minimum wage