Being a columnist is a difficult existence in digital times. Unlike in the past, readers can respond directly via social media. You are well advised to write something that will win the approval of your readers. I fear that this text will fail in this respect. It is about to comment positively on a legal judgment, […]
Being a columnist is a difficult existence in digital times. Unlike in the past, readers can respond directly via social media. You are well advised to write something that will win the approval of your readers.
I fear that this text will fail in this respect. It is about to comment positively on a legal ruling that takes something away from the architects, i.e. you. Namely, a degree of planning security and reliable minimum rates for your own work. You will have noticed – according to the European Court of Justice, the fee structure for architects violates the EU Services Directive. Brussels wants unrestricted market access for all and sees the HOAI as undermining free price competition.
As expected, the profession is critical of the ECJ ruling. The outcry was huge and unanimous. Architect Eike Becker articulated his concerns to us. I understand them. But it must also be said that free markets are a key objective of European policy. Most of us probably approve of this in principle (although the fundamental failure of market mechanisms is often proclaimed, especially in architectural discourse). However, if this declared goal of the EU is generally considered sensible, we should continue to do so as those directly affected.
The basic fear of many architects: The new free pricing opens the door to dumping offers. And one thing is clear: there will be new providers who offer their own services below the previous HOAI minimum rates. This is a challenge – for every architectural firm, but also for professional representatives (chambers, etc.). The challenge now is to promote the quality of one’s own services with renewed vigor. Above all, it is also important to explain one’s own understanding of quality. It is true that up to now, consumer protection and quality assurance have also been pursued via the fee structure. We now need new mechanisms for this. However, contrary to what some prophets of doom would have us believe, this is possible. Incidentally, the purchasers of architectural services, i.e. clients, developers and investors, also have a role to play here. They themselves must (and will) realize that awarding the contract to the cheapest provider does not automatically lead to the best result – not even economically. They need to become more competent. Sorry to have to use this unpopular word again, but this is how the market works.
The president of the Federal Association of Liberal Professions called the ruling “disappointing”. “Cutting quality in favor of price is also a mistake in the construction sector,” he criticized. And he is right about the latter. For me, however, this means above all that it is now up to the entire architectural profession and the construction industry to ensure that this does not happen.












