The Local-Labour Clause and EU Procurement
The Member State of Aurelia has transposed an EU public-procurement directive into national law. Article 9 of Aurelia's Procurement Act 2023 requires every public contract above €200,000 to include a 'local labour' clause: at least 60% of the contractor's workforce must reside in the same region. The EU directive, whose transposition deadline passed in 2022, prohibits measures that discriminate indirectly on grounds of nationality and requires that contract conditions be linked to the subject-matter of the contract. A regional authority awards a €450,000 contract to a firm that employs 55% local residents. A rival bidder, established in another Member State, challenges the award before Aurelia's administrative court. The court asks whether it may disapply Article 9, whether it must first refer the question to the Constitutional Court, and whether the directive can be invoked directly against the regional authority. Aurelia's constitution gives EU law a special status but does not expressly mention primacy.
1. Can the administrative court disapply Article 9? Explain the roles of primacy, direct effect, and consistent interpretation.
Read the worked answer
The administrative court should first try consistent interpretation: read Article 9, if possible, so that it does not discriminate and so that the local-labour clause is linked to the contract's subject-matter. If the national text is clear and cannot be read consistently, the court must consider primacy. A directive that is clear, unconditional and whose deadline has passed can have vertical direct effect against the regional authority, which is an emanation of the state. The rival bidder can rely on it. Primacy then requires the court to disapply the conflicting national provision; it does not require the national parliament to repeal it. Direct effect and primacy are distinct: direct effect gives the individual a right to invoke the directive, while primacy explains why the conflicting national rule cannot be applied. The court should not use direct effect horizontally against the contractor.
2. Does the 60% local-residence requirement constitute indirect discrimination? Apply the facts.
Read the worked answer
The 60% residence requirement is likely to be indirect discrimination. Although it is phrased neutrally, it is much harder for a contractor established in another Member State to satisfy, because its workforce is less likely to live in the region. The fact that the awarded firm reached only 55% shows the threshold is demanding even for a local firm. Indirect discrimination can be justified by an objective reason unrelated to nationality and by proportionate means. A plausible justification might be training or local economic development, but the measure must actually pursue that aim and not go beyond what is necessary. A blanket 60% rule for every contract above €200,000 is difficult to justify, especially where the link to the contract's subject-matter is weak. The court should require evidence of justification.
3. What should the court do about the possible reference to the Constitutional Court?
Read the worked answer
The court does not automatically have to refer to the Constitutional Court. EU law does not prevent national courts from asking constitutional questions, but primacy means that the Constitutional Court cannot declare EU law invalid, and a national court must set aside conflicting national law. If Aurelia's constitution lacks an express primacy clause, the administrative court may still be able to resolve the case on EU grounds. A reference could be appropriate if the national constitution imposes a distinct, higher standard of protection that does not undermine EU primacy. But a reference whose effect is to delay or block the application of clear EU law would be problematic. The practical course is to interpret Article 9 consistently; if that fails, disapply it and decide the case, giving reasons.