CURIA - Case information

Home > Search form > List of results > Case information

Start printing

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017

Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination — Election of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of a company — National legislation restricting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to employees of establishments located in the national territory

Case C-566/15

Documents in the Case

Document

Date

Name of the parties

Subject-matter

Curia

EUR-Lex

Autres Liens

Judgment (OJ)

25/08/2017

Erzberger

non-discrimination

Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2017:562

18/07/2017

Erzberger

non-discrimination

Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2017:562

18/07/2017

Erzberger

non-discrimination

Application (OJ)

19/02/2016

Erzberger

non-discrimination

Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2017:347

04/05/2017

Erzberger

non-discrimination

Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.04 Free movement of persons and services
    4.04.01 Workers
      4.04.01.01 Equal treatment

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

TFEU, Article 18 : paragraphs 1, 15, 21, 24, 25, 31, 32
TFEU, Article 45 : paragraphs 1, 15, 21, 24, 27, 29 - 33, 35, 39, 41
TFEU, Article 45 -P2 : paragraph 26

Operative part

Interprets : TFEU, Article 45

Opinion

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 27 : point 104
TFEU, Article 4 -P2 : points 88, 101, 103
TFEU, Article 18 : points 1 - 4, 15, 21, 23, 31, 33, 38 - 40, 59, 68, 76, 113
TFEU, Article 45 : points 1 - 4, 15, 22, 23, 31, 33, 38, 40, 41, 45 - 49, 51 - 53, 55, 57, 58, 60 - 62, 65 - 68, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 83 - 86, 91, 111 - 113
TFEU, Article 45 -P2 : points 39, 42 - 44, 77
TFEU, Article 45 -P3 : point 87
TFEU, Article 45 -P3LC : points 63, 64, 74
TFEU, Article 63 : point 85
TFEU, Article 151 -L1 : point 104
TFEU, Article 151 -L2 : point 104
TFEU, Article 152 -L1 : point 104
TFEU, Article 153 -P1LF : point 104
TFEU, Article 352 : point 104
Directive 2001/86 : point 66
Directive 2001/86 -C5 : point 104
Directive 2001/86 -C9 : point 104
Directive 2001/86 -N1PART1LA : point 91
Directive 2001/86 -N1PART1LBL1 : point 91
Directive 2003/72 : point 66
Directive 2003/72 -C5 : point 104
Directive 2003/72 -C9 : point 104
Directive 2003/72 -N1PART1LA : point 91
Directive 2003/72 -N1PART1LBL1 : point 91
Directive 2005/56 -A16 : point 66
Regulation 593/2008 -A08P2 : point 54
Directive 2009/38 : point 66
Directive 2009/38 -C20 : point 104
Directive 2009/38 -N1PT1LB : point 91
Regulation 492/2011 -A02 : point 74
Regulation 492/2011 -A07 : point 51
Regulation 492/2011 -A08 : point 51
Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 51972PC0887 -A04 : point 82
Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 51972PC0887 -C8 : point 82
Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52001DC0763 : point 82
Court of Justice - Judgment C -1/78 -N18 : point 76
Court of Justice - Judgment C -155/80 -N12 : point 106
Court of Justice - Judgment C -180/83 : point 62
Court of Justice - Judgment C -44/84 -N55 : point 59
Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/88 -N14 : point 106
Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/90 -N9 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/90 -N28 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/90 -N29 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -118/92 : points 43, 49
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/92 : point 96
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/92 -N46 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/92 -N47 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -55/93 -N16 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -473/93 -N35 : point 101
Court of Justice - Judgment C -44/94 -N45 : point 76
Court of Justice - Judgment C -214/94 : point 52
Court of Justice - Judgment C -212/97 -N20 : point 54
Court of Justice - Opinion C -190/98 -N32 : point 75
Court of Justice - Judgment C -190/98 -N24 : point 85
Court of Justice - Judgment C -190/98 -N25 : point 85
Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/98 : point 52
Court of Justice - Judgment C -451/99 -N40 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -208/00 -N57 : point 54
Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/01 -N97 : point 54
Court of Justice - Judgment C -171/01 -N85 : point 43
Court of Justice - Judgment C -388/01 : point 52
Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/01 -N28 : point 43
Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/01 -N30 : point 43
Court of Justice - Judgment C -446/03 -N36 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -446/03 -N39 : point 92
Court of Justice - Opinion C -347/04 -N49 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -109/04 -N26 : point 71
Court of Justice - Judgment C -347/04 -N22 : point 55
Court of Justice - Judgment C -347/04 -N69 : points 92, 96
Court of Justice - Judgment C -374/04 -N43 : point 54
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N41 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N42 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N43 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N44 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N45 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -470/04 -N46 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -208/05 : point 52
Court of Justice - Judgment C -392/05 -N76 : point 77
Court of Justice - Judgment C -212/06 -N51 : point 85
Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/06 -N24 : point 85
Court of Justice - Order C -302/06 -N20 : point 27
Court of Justice - Judgment C -208/09 -N92 : point 101
Court of Justice - Judgment C -253/09 -N44 : point 39
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/09 -N22 : point 71
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/09 -N29 : point 51
Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/09 -N30 : point 51
Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/09 -N86 : point 101
Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/10 -N43 : point 88
Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/10 -N45 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/10 -N46 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/10 -N47 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/10 -N48 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -35/11 -N92 : point 55
Court of Justice - Judgment C -474/12 -N20 : point 39
Court of Justice - Judgment C -474/12 -N21 : point 39
Court of Justice - Judgment C -514/12 -N35 : point 86
Court of Justice - Judgment C -514/12 -N36 : point 86
Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/13 -N23 : point 66
Court of Justice - Judgment C -591/13 -N64 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -591/13 -N65 : points 92, 94
Court of Justice - Judgment C -298/14 -N26 : point 53
Court of Justice - Judgment C -438/14 -N73 : points 101, 108
Court of Justice - Judgment C -479/14 -N65 : point 92
Court of Justice - Judgment C -479/14 -N66 : point 96
Court of Justice - Judgment C -503/14 -N50 : point 94
Court of Justice - Judgment C -503/14 -N51 : point 94
Court of Justice - Judgment C -583/14 -N24 : point 39
Court of Justice - Judgment C -166/15 -N22 : point 28
Court of Justice - Judgment C -187/15 -N23 : point 50
Court of Justice - Judgment C -187/15 -N24 : points 51, 77
Court of Justice - Judgment C -187/15 -N25 : point 51
Court of Justice - Judgment C -187/15 -N26 : point 51
Court of Justice - Judgment C -268/15 -N47 : point 53
Court of Justice - Judgment C -300/15 -N36 : point 70
Court of Justice - Judgment C -496/15 -N32 : point 42
Court of Justice - Judgment C -496/15 -N46 : point 77

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

03/11/2015

Date of the Opinion

04/05/2017

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

18/07/2017

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 300 from 11.09.2017, p.3

Application: OJ C 90 from 07.03.2016, p.3

Name of the parties

Erzberger

Notes on Academic Writings

Klein, Thomas ; Leist, Dominik: Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit : Passives / aktives Wahlrecht, Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht 2016 p.421-425 (DE)
Stolzenberg, Hendric: Vereinbarkeit des deutschen Mitbestimmungsgesetzes mit EU-Recht - Schlussanträge des Generalanwalts, Der Betrieb 2017 p.1077 (DE)
Teichmann, Christoph: Atempause für die Mitbestimmung, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2017 p.3 (DE)
Heuschmid, Johannes ; Videbaek Munkholm, Natalie: Zur Unionsrechtskonformität der Unternehmensmitbestimmung, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.419-424 (DE)
Uffmann, Katharina: Revolution der Unternehmensmitbestimmung abgesagt!?, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2017 p.III (DE)
Monz, Jonathan M. E. ; Wendler, Patrick: BB-Kommentar - “Das deutsche Mitbestimmungsgesetz ist mit Unionsrecht vereinbar”, Betriebs-Berater 2017 p.1788 (DE)
Schilha, Ralph: EU-Rechtskonformität der deutschen Mitbestimmungsregeln zum aktiven und passiven Wahlrecht bei Wahlen der Arbeitnehmervertreter im Aufsichtsrat („Erzberger“), Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.489-490 (DE)
Zaal, I.: Vrij verkeer van werknemers staat niet in de weg aan vervallen van stemrecht en recht zich te kandideren als vertegenwoordiger in de Raad van Toezicht, Jurisprudentie arbeidsrecht 2017 nº 1846-1847 (NL)
Wienbracke, Mike: Deutsches Mitbestimmungsgesetz arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeitskonform, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2017 p.1036-1039 (DE)
Kainer, Friedemann: Deutsche Mitbestimmung zur Wahl von Arbeitnehmervertretern im Aufsichtsrat, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2017 p.2605 (DE)
Teigelkötter, Volker: EuGH: Deutsche Unternehmensmitbestimmung ist europarechtskonform, Der Betrieb p. 1974 (DE)
Krause, Rüdiger: Europarecht. Arbeitsrecht, Juristenzeitung 2017 p.1003-1007 (DE)
Heuschmid, Johannes ; Videbaek Munkholm, Natalie: Zur Unionsrechtskonformität der Unternehmensmitbestimmung, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.419-424 (DE)
Fitzthum, André: Deutches Mitbestimmungsgesetz mit Unionsrecht vereinbar, ZMV - Die Mitarbeitervertretung 2017 p.279 (DE)
Driguez, Laetitia: Cogestion dans les sociétés mères allemandes, Europe 2017 Octobre Comm. nº 373 p.38-39 (FR)
Klein, Thomas ; Leist, Dominik: Nationales Arbeitsrecht und negative Integration, Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht 2017 p.468-476 (DE)
Keijzer, Titiaan ; Oost, Olivier: The ECJ Erzberger Case: An Analysis of German Co-Determination and EU Law, European Company Law 2017 Vol. 14 p.217-225 (EN)
Mulder, Bernard Johann: The law concerning the election of employees' representatives in company bodies, European Labour Law Journal 2017 Vol. 8 nº 1 p.96-104 (EN)
Seifert, Achim: The case of Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG. Comment to Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), judgment of 18 July 2017, Case C-566/15, European Labour Law Journal 2017 Vol. 8 nº 1 p.333-343 (EN)
Rödl, Florian: Wichtige Einsichten: Territorialanknüpfung des Arbeitsrechts und allseitige Kollisionsnormen mit Unionsrecht vereinbar, Europäische Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2018 p.88-97 (DE)
Van Mierlo, J.J.M.: Is het Duitse Mitbestimmungsgesetz in strijd met Europees recht, nu uitsluitend werknemers van in Duitsland gevestigde concernvennootschappen actief en passief kiesrecht hebben ten aanzien van de samenstelling van de raad van toezicht bij de Duitse hoofdvestiging?, Ondernemingsrecht 2018 p.192-194 (NL)
Ludvik, Christoph: Art 45 AEUV bedingt keine Ausdehnung der AN-Mitbestimmung im Aufsichtsrat auf AN ausländischer Betriebe, Das Recht der Arbeit 2018 p.114-117 (DE)
Heuschmid, Johannes: Unternehmensmitbestimmung verstößt nicht gegen Unionsrecht, Arbeit und Recht 2018 p.246-247 (DE)
Höpner, Martin: Curbing negative integration: German supervisory board codetermination does not restrict the common market, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2018 n.2 p.246-259 (EN)
Seifert, Achim: Unternehmensmitbestimmung und Unionrecht, Jahrbuch des Arbeitsrecht (Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin) 2018 p.23-39 (DE)
Lafuente Hernández, Sara ; Rasnača, Zane: Can worker's rights ever catch up ? The Erzberger case and EU cross-border reality, Industrial Law Journal 2019 Vol.48 N°1 p.98-116 (EN)
A., I.: Cauza C-566/15, Konrad Erzberger/TUI AG, Revista românã de drept european 2020 nº 4 p. 128-130, (RO)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Kammergericht - Germany

Subject-matter

non-discrimination
Citizenship of the Union
Freedom of movement for workers

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Levits

Advocate General

Saugmandsgaard Øe

Language(s) of the Case

German

Language(s) of the Opinion

French