(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Freedom to provide services– Article49 TFEU– Directive 2006/123

49By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article49 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which sets minimum rates for services provided by architects and engineers and which renders invalid agreements which derogate from that legislation.

50In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital do not, in principle, apply to a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State (judgment of 15November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C‑268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph47 and the case-law cited).

51As can be seen from the order for reference, the dispute in the main proceedings is characterised by factors that are all confined within the Federal Republic of Germany. There is nothing in the case file before the Court to indicate that one of the parties to the main proceedings is established outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or that the services at issue in the main proceedings were performed outside that territory.

52In that regard, it should be noted that the Court, on a question being referred to it by a national court in connection with a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, cannot, where the referring court gives no indication to that effect, consider that a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the fundamental freedoms is necessary for the purpose of resolving the dispute pending before that court. The specific factors that allow a link to be established between the subject matter or circumstances of a dispute which is confined in all respects within the Member State concerned, on the one hand, and Article49, 56 or 63 TFEU, on the other, must be apparent from the order for reference (see, to that effect, judgment of 15November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C‑268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph54).

53Consequently, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court to indicate to the Court, in accordance with the requirements of Article94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in what way the dispute pending before it, despite its purely domestic character, has a connecting factor with the provisions of EU law relating to the fundamental freedoms that makes the requested preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of those provisions necessary for the purpose of resolving that dispute (see, to that effect, judgment of 15November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C‑268/15, EU:C:2016:874, paragraph55).

54As the order for reference contains no indication to that effect, the present question cannot be regarded as admissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 20September 2018, Fremoluc, C‑343/17, EU:C:2018:754, paragraph33; of 14November 2018, Memoria and Dall’Antonia, C‑342/17, EU:C:2018:906, paragraph21; and of 24October 2019, Belgische Staat, C‑469/18 and C‑470/18, EU:C:2019:895, paragraph26).

55Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the second question is inadmissible.