Judgment of the Court Grand Chamber of 18 January 2022, Thelen Technopark Berlin, C-261/20

• Date: 18 January 2022
• Year: 2022

4

final decision concerning the deprivation of nationality without ensuring that that decision enters into

force only once the new nationality has actually been acquired.

That said, in a situation where the status of citizen of the Union has already been temporarily lost

because, in the context of a n aturalisation procedure, the Member State of origin withdraws the

nationality of the person concerned before that person has actually acquired the nationality of the

host Member State, the obligation to ensure the effectiveness of Article 20 TFEU falls primarily on the

latter Member State. That obligation arises, in particular, in respect of a decision to revoke the

assurance as to naturalisation which may make the loss of the status of citizen of the Union

permanent. Such a decision can therefore be made only on legitimate grounds and subject to the

principle of proportionality.

Under the examination of proportionality it is necessary to establish, in particular, whether that

decision is justified in relation to the gravity of the offences committed by the person concerned. As

regards JY, since the offences committed prior to the assurance as to naturalisation did not preclude

that assurance being given, they can no longer be taken into account as a basis for the decision to

revoke that assurance. As for those committed after receiving the assurance as to naturalisation, in

view of their nature and gravity as well as the requirement that the concepts of public policy and

public security be interpreted strictly, they do not show that JY represents a genuine, present and

sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or a threat to public

security in Austria. Traffic offences, punishable by mere administrative fines, cannot be regarded as

capable of demonstrating that the person responsible for those offences is a threat to public policy

and public security which may justify the permanent loss of his or her status of citizen of the Union.

II. EU LAW AND NATIONAL LAW

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022, Thelen Techn opark Berlin,

C-261/20

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Article 49 TFEU –

Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 15 – Architects’ and engineers’ fees – Fixed minimum tariffs – Direct

effect – Judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations delive red during proceedings before a national

court or tribunal

In 2016, Thelen, a real estate company, and MN, an engineer, concluded a service contract pursuant

to which MN undertook to perform certain services covered by the Verordnung über die Honorare für

Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Honorar ordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure – HOAI)

(German decree of 10 July 2013 on fees for services provided by architects and engineers ; ‘the HOAI’)

in return for payment of a flat-rate fee, the amount of which was EUR 55 025.

One year later, MN terminated that contract and invoiced Thelen for the services performed by way of

a final fee invoice. Relying on a provision of the HOAI

4

providing that, for the servic es which he or she

has provided, the service provider is entitled to remuneration at least equal to the minimum rate set

by national law, and taking into account the payments already made, MN brought an action before a

4

Paragraph 7 of that decree makes the minimu m rates set in the scale laid down in that paragraph mandatory for planning and supervision

services provided by architects and engineers, except in some exceptional cases, and renders invalid any agreement concluded with

architects or engineers setting fees lower than the minimum rates.