CASE OF GEOTECH KANCEV GMBH v. GERMANY
Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev
6. The applicant company specialises in taking soil samples by way of drilling for geological examination, inter alia, for the purpose of assessing suitability for building sites and for the construction of wells. 7. In the building industry in Germany, a number of collective agreements operated, which contained regulations related to the social welfare of employees working in that sector (see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs 21-28). The employers’ associations in the building industry (Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie and Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes) and the trade union (IG Bauen-Agrar-Umwelt) concluded the Collective Agreement on Social Welfare Proceedings in the Building Trade (Tarifvertrag über das Sozialkassenverfahren im Baugewerbe, “VTV”). The VTV contained rules about contributions and entitlements in relation to both the ZVK and the Holiday and Wage Equalisation Fund of the Construction Industry (Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft, “ULAK”), which jointly comprised the Social Welfare Fund in the building industry which went by the common name “SOKA-BAU”. 8. As the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs declared the VTV generally binding (allgemeinverbindlich) pursuant to Section 5 § 1 of the Law on Collective Agreements (Tarifvertragsgesetz), it was binding on all employers in the building industry, even if they did not belong to the employers’ association (Section 5 § 4 of the Law on Collective Agreements, see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 20). As a consequence, all employers in the building industry were obliged to contribute to the Social Welfare Fund an additional sum amounting to 19.8% of the gross wages paid to their employees. 9. The applicant company was not a member of an employers’ association that was party to the relevant collective agreements. It was thus not directly bound by any collective agreements by virtue of such membership. 10. On 10 August 2004 the Social Welfare Fund sent a letter to the applicant company with key information about the supplementary welfare schemes, including with regard to contributions to be paid and possible benefits it might receive. The applicant company did not react to this letter. 11. On 12 April 2005, following enquiries made in order to establish whether the applicant was obliged to pay contributions, the Social Welfare Fund sent a letter to the applicant company, informing it about its duty to pay contributions and that an account had been opened into which benefits would be paid. 12. On 28 April 2005 the applicant company’s lawyer sent a letter to the Social Welfare Fund, objecting to being registered with the Fund. 13. On 11 October 2007 the Wiesbaden Labour Court ordered the applicant company to pay 63,625.58 euros (EUR) in welfare fund arrears for the period between September 2002 and March 2004 to the ZVK. The applicant company was further ordered to submit copies of the wage slips issued to its employees between January 2006 and June 2007. The Labour Court considered that the applicant company was bound by the VTV, which was binding on all employers in the building industry even if they did not belong to one of the employers’ associations. The activities of the applicant company fell within the scope of the VTV which, in its Article 1 § 2 (v) no. 6, listed drilling as an activity within its scope. 14. The applicant company lodged an appeal submitting, in particular, that the generally binding effect of the VTV violated the negative aspects of its right to freedom of association. It argued that it was obliged to contribute to a fund jointly set up by the employers’ association and the trade union, even though it did not belong to either of these associations. The applicant company further complained that it was prevented from founding its own association, due to a lack of funds. 15. On 27 June 2008 the Hesse Labour Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s appeal and did not grant leave for an appeal on points of law. As well as confirming the Labour Court’s reasoning, the Court of Appeal held that the generally binding effect of the VTV did not violate the applicant company’s right to freedom of association. It observed that the generally binding effect did not entail an obligation to adhere either to one of the employers’ associations or to the Social Welfare Fund. Referring to the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of 15 July 1980, 1 BvR 24/74, see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 27), the Labour Court of Appeal conceded that the applicant company, which was not a member of one of the employers’ associations, had the disadvantage of not being able to assert its interests by exercising control over the activities of the Social Welfare Fund via these associations. The right to participate in the decision-making process within these associations was reserved to members of the respective association. In so far as this fact exerted a certain pressure to become a member of one of the employers’ associations, this was, however, not sufficient to amount to a violation of the negative aspect of its right to freedom of association. 16. The Court of Appeal further considered that the obligation to contribute to the Social Welfare Fund did not prevent the applicant company from founding its own association. It observed that the major parts of the contributions due would be reimbursed to the applicant if properly declared. 17. The Court of Appeal finally considered that the obligatory contribution to the Social Welfare Fund took account of the high fluctuation of employees in the building industry and served the public interest of allowing for management of the employee’s claims by the Social Welfare Fund, thus preventing a distortion of competition. 18. On 10 December 2008 the Federal Labour Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint against the refusal to grant leave to appeal. 19. On 5 February 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the applicant company’s constitutional complaint for adjudication without providing reasons (1 BvR 243/09).