Publication of information in the RUT register was in contravention of ...

Case no. 115/2019
Judgment delivered on 30 November 2020

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

The case concerned the issue of whether foreign company T was punishable for violating the then applicable Danish Secondment Act by not having registered in the RUT register as provider of services in Denmark and by not having notified a change of the time of completion of the provision of a service in due time.

The question was whether the obligation to notify and the public access to some of the information in the RUT register following from Section 7a(1) and (5) and Section 7c(1) of the then applicable Secondment Act were in contravention of Article 56(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the freedom to provide services in the EU.

The Supreme Court agreed that the obligation to notify for a foreign service provider under the then applicable Section 7a(1) and (5) did not go beyond what was necessary to attain the purpose of the RUT register.

Referring to the special structure of the Danish labour market, where the two sides of industry negotiate and control wage and working conditions, the Supreme Court stated that it is necessary for the parties to have access to the information set out in the then applicable Section 7c(1).

The question was whether the fact that everyone had access to this information went beyond what was necessary to achieve the purpose of the RUT register.

The Supreme Court held that public access to information about the foreign company's name, business address and contact information, contact person in Denmark and industry code – to the extent that this element of the RUT register amounts to a restriction – could not be regarded as going beyond what was necessary to attain the purpose.

However, based on an overall assessment, the Supreme Court found that publication of information about the place of delivery of the service must be regarded as going beyond what was necessary to achieve the purpose of the RUT register and as being in contravention of Article 56(1) TFEU.

Against this background, the Supreme Court found for T.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.