[3] It was soon implicitly reversed by the Rome I Regulation, recital 35, which states that in terms of conflicts of laws, mandatory rules for employees "can only be derogated from to their benefit.

"[citation needed] A Latvian company, Laval un Partneri Ltd won a contract from the Swedish government to renovate schools.

The ECJ held that, following ITWF v Viking Lines ABP (The Rosella), the "right to take collective action for the protection of the workers of the host state against possible social dumping may constitute an overriding reason of public interest" which could justify an infringement of free movement of services.

In addition, according to recital 17, the mandatory rules for minimum protection in force in the host country must not prevent the application of such terms and conditions.

110 However, collective action such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified in the light of the public interest objective referred to in paragraph 102 of the present judgment, where the negotiations on pay, which that action seeks to require an undertaking established in another Member State to enter into, form part of a national context characterised by a lack of provisions, of any kind, which are sufficiently precise and accessible that they do not render it impossible or excessively difficult in practice for such an undertaking to determine the obligations with which it is required to comply as regards minimum pay (see, to that effect, Arblade and Others, paragraph 43).The case was roundly condemned by labour and human rights lawyers throughout the European Union.

[citation needed] In Sweden, the Labour Court sentenced the two trade unions to pay 550,000 Swedish kronor (€65,700) in so-called general damages plus interest and legal costs to Laval’s bankruptcy estate.