Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions about HME / MEF
General Concept
What exactly is MEF?
HME (Honorarios Mínimos Equivalentes) — or MEF in English, Minimum Equivalent Fees — is a regulatory proposal that establishes a minimum remuneration floor for self-employed professionals (architects, engineers, consultants, etc.), based on the principle that a self-employed professional should be able to earn, at a minimum, the equivalent cost of what it would cost an employer to hire an employed professional with the same competencies.
The model distinguishes two references, derived from explicit layers of regulatory and collectively-bargained data (see the technical methodology):
- MEF floor: the actual anti-discrimination threshold — the collectively-bargained salary (or the SMI) + employer social security contribution + operating costs, divided by annual hours and the utilization rate.
- Cost floor: the practice’s real production cost (reference remuneration + employer cost-multiplier coefficient + overheads and industrial profit, by analogy with art. 131 RGLCAP).
Why is MEF proposed?
There is a structural pay gap between self-employed professionals and employees with the same qualification: according to data from the Architects’ Council of Europe, the median income of architects working self-employed in Spain is noticeably lower than that of those working as employees, both in the private and public sectors (full figures in the technical methodology).
This inequality does not reflect market efficiency; rather, it reflects the absence of a legal remuneration floor of the kind that already exists for salaried work (SMI, collective agreement).
Isn’t this a “tariff” that violates free competition?
No. There is a fundamental difference:
| Professional-association tariff (prohibited) | MEF (proposed) |
|---|---|
| A fixed fee imposed by a professional association | A minimum floor derived from cost analysis |
| Agreed between competitors | Regulated by the State |
| Eliminates price competition | Allows competition above the minimum |
| Contrary to TFEU art. 101 | Justified by non-discrimination (arts. 14 and 35 CE) |
Reference: CJEU case law (C-94/04 Cipolla, C-202/04 Asnef-Equifax, C-377/17, C-19/23) draws precisely this distinction — see Legal Framework.
Legal Framework
Is it constitutional in Spain?
That is the foundation of the proposal. It rests on:
- Article 14 CE (equality): non-discrimination in remuneration for equivalent work.
- Article 35 CE (right to work): “sufficient remuneration” must be equivalent regardless of the type of contract.
Is it compatible with the Services Directive (2006/123/EC)?
That is the argument put forward in the proposal: article 15 allows restrictions on the freedom to provide services for “overriding reasons relating to the public interest,” including the protection of workers and non-discrimination — provided the measure is necessary and proportionate (the test under Directive (EU) 2018/958).
And with TFEU art. 101 (prohibition of cartels)?
The compatibility argument rests on three elements:
- It would not be an agreement between competitors (prohibited), but state regulation.
- It would respond to an objective of general interest (non-discrimination), not to the protection of a professional group.
- It would not eliminate price competition (it is a floor, not a single or maximum price).
See the full analysis, with case law and comparative precedents, in the Legal Framework.
Technical Aspects
How is the MEF floor calculated?
In brief (full derivation, with the source table for each input, in the technical methodology):
- It starts from the sector’s collectively-bargained reference salary (or, alternatively, the SMI), plus the employer social security contribution and the practice’s operating costs.
- It is divided by the collective agreement’s annual hours (1,792 h).
- The result is two reference values: €31.08/h (MEF floor, collective-agreement base, the same across 2024–2027 for lack of a more recent salary table) and, on the SMI, between €21.59/h (2024) and €22.49/h (2026–2027), depending on the year — the absolute threshold. Both calculators include a year selector (2024–2027) to choose which figures to apply in each case.
Separately, the cost floor (what it costs a practice to produce one hour of work, including its margin) adjusts those hours by a utilization rate (59.3%, Architecture/A-E segment for fiscal year 2025, an industry benchmark — Deltek Clarity A&E, not an official Spanish figure) and adds overheads and industrial profit by analogy with art. 131 RGLCAP, resulting in €58.23/h.
These values are recalculated automatically, for each specific commission, in the evaluator and the estimator.
Who sets the starting inputs (salary, costs, utilization rate)?
Each input has a different origin and status, documented in the technical methodology: some are regulatory (SMI, social security contributions, SEGIPSA tariffs), others are collectively-bargained (the sector’s collective agreement), and others are a working assumption, editable and open to debate (operating costs, utilization rate). Nothing is presented as an official figure when it is not.
How would these values be updated?
Today they are figures set by the proposal’s author according to the cited sources, pending periodic updating in line with CPI and the review of the collective agreement and the SMI — there is not yet an institutional update mechanism, because MEF is a proposal in the advocacy stage, not a rule in force.
Implementation and Scope
Who would MEF affect?
The proposal, as formally raised (see Advocacy), focuses on self-employed professionals subject to mandatory professional- association membership — initially architects, with the intention of extending it to other equivalent professions (engineers, consultants in regulated sectors) — regardless of their social security contribution regime (self-employed individual or professional company).
How would it be implemented?
This is still a matter of proposal, not a closed-off mechanism. The formal petition proposes that the State establish a system of Minimum Equivalent Fees, either directly or through the professional associations, under its supervision — see the text of the original petition for the exact approach.
International Comparison
How is this regulated in other countries?
| Country | Model | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | DM 17/6/2016: formula CP = V·G·ΣQ·P, reference hourly rate (art. 6.2) | In force |
| Spain | The MEF proposal | In the advocacy stage |
Full analysis of the Italian model, with articles and primary sources, in the Legal Framework, which also covers the German precedent (HOAI) and the limits it sets for a proposal like MEF.
Is the MEF proposal based on the Italian model?
No. MEF’s foundation is the constitutional principle of non-discrimination (arts. 14 and 35 CE), formally raised in Spain in March 2021 — before, in other words, the Italian Law 49/2023 on equo compenso existed. Italy is cited as a comparative reference for two reasons, not as the origin of the proposal:
- DM 17/6/2016 provides a technically useful calculation method to check the MEF floor against.
- Law 49/2023 confirms that another EU Member State has already implemented an equivalent mechanism, which supports MEF’s legal viability under EU competition law.
Economic Impact
Would it substantially increase the cost of professional services?
The argument put forward in the proposal is that it would not, significantly, because:
- Many professionals already charge above the MEF floor — the minimum mainly affects the lower tail of prices, the one most associated with dumping.
- MEF is a floor, not a single price: price competition above the minimum is preserved.
- It corrects an information asymmetry (the client does not know the real production cost of the service), rather than introducing a new distortion.
This is a reasoned argument, not a verified empirical figure for the Spanish case: the proposal is in the advocacy stage, with no implementation yet that would allow its real impact to be measured.
Would it affect competition?
The argument is that it would not, adversely: price competition above the floor is preserved, competition on quality and specialisation is strengthened, and competition through dumping is eliminated — which is not competition through efficiency, but through precarisation.
Common Objections
“This is professional-association protectionism in disguise”
The difference from a professional-association tariff is essential: a tariff is a fixed fee, agreed between competitors, that eliminates price competition. MEF is a floor derived from a cost analysis, regulated by the State — not by a professional association — that allows competition above the minimum. “Protectionism,” if anything, would be allowing dumping indefinitely.
“The market should be left to set itself freely”
The argument put forward is that the market does not function freely when there is information asymmetry (the client does not know the real production cost of the service) and when the alternative to the minimum floor is unfair competition through below-cost pricing. MEF seeks to correct that market failure, not replace it.
“Why not simply change profession?”
Because the pay gap between self-employed and salaried work, where it exists, is systemic — potentially affecting different regulated professions — and changing profession would also mean losing one’s qualification. The problem the proposal addresses is regulatory in nature, not individual.
Next Steps
What is the current status?
The full, up-to-date status of the proceedings — petitions, complaints, appeals and their dates — is in the Advocacy timeline, kept up to date as the case file progresses. In brief: the judicial route begun in 2021 was resolved (finally) in 2024–2025; the institutional route opened in 2026 before the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business and the Spanish Ombudsman is still ongoing.
How can I collaborate?
Through the contact form — to propose a collaboration, contribute cost data or professional testimony (including from other professions or trades), report a relevant regulation or action not yet covered on this site, or leave any feedback about the proposal.
Last updated: September 2026