Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:44.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of Laval in the Context of the Post-Enlargement EC Law Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Uladzislau Belavusau

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article does not envisage an overwhelming goal to present a detailed X-ray of the recently much-discussed ECJ decisions in the field of social law, namely Laval and Viking. One could find several very profound papers whose authors thoroughly explore the various issues at stake, including the trade unions strategies in the frame of the EC Law, the role of the Posted Workers Directive, a horizontal direct effect in the context of the service-providing, the negotiation of wages and the Scandinavian social model. Therefore, the goal of this piece is to put Laval into the macroflora of a wider context, inherent to the effects of the post-enlargement labour conflict and its implications for the fundamentalization of social rights in the Union.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , 01 December 2008 , pp. 2279 - 2308
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case 341/05, Laval un Partneri Ptd v. v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet et al., 2007 ECR I-5751. The case is often referred to as Vaxholm case because the industrial action was undertaken on a building site in Vaxholm, a town not far from Stockholm (see Kerstin Ahlberg, Niklas Bruun, and Jonas Malmberg, The Vaxholm Case from a Swedish and European Perspective, 12 Transfer 2/06, 155, 155–166 (2006).Google Scholar

2 Case 438/05, International Transport Workers’ Union Federation et al. v. Vikingline ABP et al., 2007 ECR I-000.Google Scholar

3 See for example, Reich, Norbert, Free Movement v. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union - the Laval and Viking Cases before the EC], 2 GLJ, 125, 125–161 (2008); Mestre, Bruno, The Ruling Laval un Partneri: Clarification and Innovation, 1 ELR, 2, 2–9 (2008); Bercusson, Brian, The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: Judgement Day, 13 ELJ, 279, 279–308 (2007); Chaumette, Patrick, Les actions collectives syndicales dans le maillage des libertés communautaires des enterprises, 2 Obs. Sur CJCE, Dr. Soc., 210, 210–220 (2008).Google Scholar

4 The focus of this paper is on Laval due to the fact that in Viking the ECJ offered a less articulated feedback on the status of social provisions. In Viking, the Luxembourg jury leaves it to the national courts to decide on the outcomes. Besides, the issue of the flag of convenience would need a separate thorough analysis in the context of Private International Law, especially with the implications for the taxation system.Google Scholar

5 Dougan, Michael, A Spectre is Haunting Europe…Free movement of Persons and the Eastern Enlargement, in EU Enlargement: A Legal Approach, 111–142 (Hillion, Christophe, ed., 2004).Google Scholar

6 Id., 112.Google Scholar

7 Nicola Doyle, Gerard Hughes and Eskie Wadensjo, Freedom of Movement for Workers from Central and Eastern Europe: Experiences in Ireland and Sweden, 5 Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (2006).Google Scholar

8 The notion of ‘social dumping’ will be analyzed with regard to the EC Social Law. It is a theoretical construction which is described neither in EC\EU Treaties, nor sufficiently defined in the case-law. In the enlargement context the term ‘dumping’ is often referred to describe the influx of cheep goods on the EU-15 market. See Paul Brenton, Anti-Dumping, Diversion and the Next Enlargement of the EU (1999). In Laval both the Advocate General in his opinion and the Court in its decision address the notion of social dumping on several occasions without setting a general definition (For further discussion, see especially para. 103, 113 in the decision; see also numerous references to the “combat of social dumping” in the Opinion of AG Mengozzi: para. 246, 249, 251, 273, 280, 307, 309). The anti-dumping measure is interpreted strictly in the context of the Swedish Law on Workers’ Participation in Decisions (Medbestammändelagen). Further the paper will attempt to find, at least, an adequate description of social dumping in the post-enlargement context.Google Scholar

9 Michael Herman and Agencies, ECJ hears landmark labor case, Times On-line (9 January 2007). Available at: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate/article1291012.ece (last accessed on 18 November 2008); Tait, Nikki, A Viking sea battle to rock the EU boat, The Financial Times (1 January 2007). Available at: http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto010120071237549438 (last accessed on 18 November 2008).Google Scholar

10 See further, Gaëtan, Gorce, L'Union européenne face aux risques de dumping social, 7 Assemble nationale, 2000; Eklund, Ronnie, The Laval Case. Swedish Labour Court Decision 2005 No. 49, 35 ILJ 203 (2006).Google Scholar

11 For an example, see Tamara K. Hervey and Jeff Kenner, Economic and Social Rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental rights: a Legal Perspective (2003); Craven, Matthew C.R., The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: a Perspective on its Development, (1995).Google Scholar

12 When these rights referred to in the literature as ‘fundamental rights’ (les droits fondamentaux), it is usually done with the aim to distinguish them from the ‘fundamental freedoms’ (les libertés fondamentales). Within this approach the former are meant to be synonymic with human rights. And the latter are those which come under the scope of internal market. See in particular, Alberto Alemanno, A la recherche d'un juste équilibre entre libertés fondamentales et droits fondamentaux dans le cadre du marché intérieurs Quelques réfletions à propos des arrěts « Schmidberger » et « Omega » », 4 Revue du droit de l'Union européenne [RDUE] 709 (2004).Google Scholar

13 This synonymous approach has become traditional for EC law doctrine; in particular, see Armin Von Bogdany, The European Union as a Human Rights Organization? Human Rights and the Core of the European Union, 37 CML Rev. 1307, 1307–1338 (2000). It should be noted that sometimes the terminology of ‘fundamental rights’ is used to embrace even a wider scope of rights and freedoms, including civil, cultural, economic, social and political rights (For an example, see John Morijn, Balancing Fundamental Rights and Common Market Freedoms in Union Laws: Schmidberger and Omega in the Light of the European Constitution, 12 ELJ 15, 15–40 (2006) which is inadmissible in the light of the present paper, since it distinguishes ‘fundamental’ (human) and ‘social’ rights in order to answer the question whether the latter has acquired (or might acquire) a similar ‘derogation’ status which human rights do enjoy now in EC law.Google Scholar

14 For a more comprehensive analysis see Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU: the Four Freedoms (2006); White, Robin C.A., Workers, Establishment and Services in the European Union (2004).Google Scholar

15 For a more detailed distinguishing analysis between workers and services providers in the context of free movement see Marc De Vos, Free Movement of Workers, Free Movement of Services and the Posted Workers Directive: a Bermuda Triangle for National Labour Standards? ERA-Forum, N 3/2006, 357, 357–359 (2006).Google Scholar

16 European Union Law: Texts and Materials, 705 (Chalmers, Damian ed. 2006)Google Scholar

17 Consider Case 85/96, Martinez Sala, 1998 ECR 1–2691; Case 314/99, Baumbast, 2002 ECR I-07091; Case 60/00, Carpenter, 2002 ECR I-6279; Case 148/02, Garcia Avello, 2003 ECR I-11613; Case 200/02, Chen, 2004 ECR I-09925.Google Scholar

18 Chalmers, supra note 16, 697.Google Scholar

19 Florence Hartmann-Vareilles and Maria Pilar Nunez Ruiz, « Le travailleur communautaire: quelques réflexions sur un élément inachevé du marché intérieur », ERA, 3/2006 326, 326–344 (2006).Google Scholar

20 Consider Case 168/91, Konstantinidis, 1993ECR 1–1191; Joint Cases 493/01 and C-482/01, Orfanopulos, 2004 ECR I-05257; Case 109/01, Arkich, 2003 ECR I-09607.Google Scholar

21 See Cabral, Pedro, La libre cirulation des soins médicaux dans l'Union européene, Sean Van Raepenbusch, Libre circulation et sécurité sociale, and Pablo Dengler, Libre circulation des personnes et imposition dircte, in La libre circulation des personnes: Etats des lieux et perspectives, Cahiers du College d'Europe N° 5, Actes d'un colloque organise en 2003 a Liege (2007), 203–268.Google Scholar

22 Strumia, Francesca, Citizenship and free movement: European and American features of a Judicial Formula for Increased Comity, (2006) CJEL, Vol. 12, 3/2006. 714–715.Google Scholar

23 Case 209/03, Bidar, 2005 ECR I-02119 (para. 83).Google Scholar

24 Case 200/02, Chen, 2004 ECR I-09925.Google Scholar

25 Interestingly enough, in his Opinion in Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (name of Leonhard-Matthias) AG F. Jacobs goes even further to admit that one should not look for economic actor any longer.Google Scholar

26 The Court even found the link between economic activities and the language (Case 281/98, Angonese, [2000] ECR I-4139; Case 378/87, Groener, 1989 ECR I-3967 etc) or between economic activities and the name (Konstantinidis, supra note 21, Garcia Avello, supra note 18, 2003 ECR). Moreover, the prostitution was acknowledged being an economic activity (Joined Cases 115 and 116/81, Adoui & Cornuaille, 1982 ECR I-1665).Google Scholar

27 Case 415/93, Bosman, 1995 ECR I-4921.Google Scholar

28 Cases 267/91 and 268/91, Keck & Mithouard, 1993ECR 1993 I-06097.Google Scholar

29 Para. 98: “[…] The abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the freedom to provide services would be compromised in the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organizations not governed by public law”.Google Scholar

30 This notion was first introduced in the German legal doctrine in the 1960s. For an analysis of the evolution of the term see Dominik Hanf, Le développement de la citoyenneté de l'Union européenne, in La libre circulation des personnes: Etats des lieux et perspectives, Cahiers du College d'Europe N° 5, Actes d'un colloque organise en 2003 a Liege, (2007), 16–17.Google Scholar

31 Weiler, Joseph H.H., Does Europe Need a Constitution? Reflections on Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, ELJ 219 (1995).Google Scholar

32 BARNARD, supra note 14, 402–403.Google Scholar

33 Case 293/83, Gravier, 1985 ECR I-00593; Case 184/99, Grzelczyk, 2001 ECR I-07091; Case 209/03, Bidar, 2005 ECR I-02119. M.ichael Dougan, The Constitutional Dimension to the Case Law on Union citizenship 31 E.L. Rev. 613 (2006).Google Scholar

34 Grzelczyk, supra note 34, 2001 at para. 31. See also an unusual (in terms of legal rhetoric) recent Opinion of AG Colomer in Joint Cases 11/06 and 12/06, Rhiannon Morgan v Bezirksregierung koln and Iris Bucher v Landrat des kreises Duren, 2007 (para. 37–68), where he refers to historical aspects of this particular destiny of European citizenship.Google Scholar

35 Barnard, supra note 14, 402–403.Google Scholar

36 Case 356/98, Kaba I, 2000 ECR I-2623 and Case 466/00, Kaba II, 2003 ECR I-2219.Google Scholar

37 Dougan, supra note 6, 114.Google Scholar

38 The question of ‘European solidarity’ has been profoundly treated in a series of European Law Review: Editorial, The unbearable heaviness of European citizenship, 31 E.L. Rev. (2006). Also, Oxana Golynker Jobseekers’ rights in the EU: challenges of changing the paradigm of social solidarity, 30 E.L.Rev., 111, 111–123 (2005).Google Scholar

39 Further enumeration is based on the article of Prof. Dougan, supra note 5.Google Scholar

40 Id., 7.Google Scholar

44 Id., 17.Google Scholar

42 Id. Google Scholar

43 De Vos, supra note 15, 361.Google Scholar

44 Case 113/89, Rush Portuguesa v. Office national d'immigration, 1990 ECR I-1417.Google Scholar

45 Id., para. 18.Google Scholar

46 De Vos, , supra note 15, 362. See also Kahmann, Markus, The posting of workers in the German construction industry: responses and problems of trade union action and Lefebvre, Bruno, Posted workers in France, 12 Transfer 183–196, 197–212 (2006).Google Scholar

47 EC Directive 1996/71 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 December 1996, concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, O.J. L18/1.Google Scholar

48 Catherine Barnard, EC Employment Law, Third Edition, 278 (2007). See also Olaf Deinert, Posting of Workers to Germany. Previous Evolutions and New Influences Throughout EU Legislation Proposals, 16 Int. J. Comp. L.L.I.R. 217–234 (2000)Google Scholar

49 For a comprehensive analysis see Reich, supra note 3.Google Scholar

50 Case 43/93, Vander Elst v. Office des Migrations Internationales, 1994 ECR I-3803. See also Case 244/04, Commission v. Germany, 2006 ECR I-000. The reference should be made to the rules of Rome Convention on rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations OJ 1980 L266/1.Google Scholar

51 Barnard, supra note 48, 278–280.Google Scholar

52 Id., 278.Google Scholar

53 Case 165/98, Criminal proceedings against André Mazzoleni and Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL, 2001 ECR I-2189.Google Scholar

54 Barnard, supra note 48, 279. See also Jean-Philippe Lhernould, Le principe de non-discrimination à l'égard des frontaliers en matière de sécurité sociale, ERA, 3/2006 381 (2006). The author provides an analysis of the specific rules of coordination in the fields of social security applicable to frontier workers.Google Scholar

55 In fact, in para. 103 of Laval the Court directly refers to Mazzoleni, so the “internal market reasoning” of the ECJ seems to be quite consistent.Google Scholar

56 Case 68–71/98, Finalarte, 2001 ECR I-7831.Google Scholar

57 EC Directive 93/104 of the Council, of 23 November 1993, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Case 164/99, Portugaia Construções, 2002 ECR I-787.Google Scholar

59 Dougan, supra note 5, 137.Google Scholar

60 Case 445/03, Commission v. Luxembourg, 2004 ECR I-10191.Google Scholar

61 Commission v. Luxembourg, 2004 supra note 60, and, Commission v. Germany, 2006, supra note 50.Google Scholar

62 Commission v. Luxembourg, 2004 supra note 60, and, Vander Elst, 1994, supra note 50.Google Scholar

63 Id., para. 30 and 47.Google Scholar

64 para. 103.Google Scholar

65 In particular, Case 376/96, Arblade and Others, 1999 ECR I-8453, Mazzoleni & ISA, 2001 supra note 53, Finalarte & Others, 2001 supra note 56.Google Scholar

66 Dougan, supra note 5, 133.Google Scholar

67 Doyle, supra note 7, 10.Google Scholar

68 Dougan, supra note 5, 121.Google Scholar

69 Heather Grabbe, Profiting from EU enlargement, 43 (2001).Google Scholar

70 Another trend is to concert wage levels at PPP (purchasing power parity). This approach shows that for some countries (especially Baltic States) the absolute gap in per capita incomes to the EU-15 is still capable of provoking large labour migration potential. For other countries (Slovenia and Czech Republic) PPP was quite comparative to the countries of previous enlargement. For a thorough economic analysis see Frigyes Ferdinand Heinz and Melanie Ward-Warmedinger, Cross-Border Labour Mobility Within An Enlarged EU, 52 Occasional paper series, 16–17 (2006). For a more politics-oriented study see Marat Kengerlinsky, Restrictions in EU Immigration Policies Towards New Member States 2 Journal of European Affairs (2004). For detailed analysis of legal implications dating back to the economic fears see Orsolya Farkas and Olga Rymkevitch, Immigration and the Free Movement of Workers after Enlargement: Contrasting Choices 20(3) Int.J.Comp.L.L.I.R. 369 (2004); Adelina Adinolfi Free Movement and Access to Work of Citizens of the New Member State: The Transitional Measures 41 CML Rev. 469 (2005).Google Scholar

71 Doyle, supra note 7, 121–122.Google Scholar

72 Dougan, supra note 5, 122.Google Scholar

73 Doyle, supra note 7, 10.Google Scholar

74 Id., 20–21.Google Scholar

75 Dougan, supra note 5, 121–122.Google Scholar

76 Doyle, supra note 7, 10.Google Scholar

77 Id., 19.Google Scholar

78 In other literature described as ‘domino effect', see in particular, Samantha Curie, “Free” movers? The post-accession experience of accession - 8 migrant workers in the United Kingdom, 31 E.L. Rev. 211 (2006).Google Scholar

79 Doyle, supra note 7, 23.Google Scholar

80 Grabbe, supra note 69, 4.Google Scholar

81 Id. Google Scholar

82 Id, 14.Google Scholar

83 Inglis, Kirstyn, Treading the Tightrope between Flexibility and Legal Certainty: The Temporary Derogations from the Acquis on the Freedom of Movement of Workers and Safeguard Measures under the Accession Treaty, in La libre circulation des personnes: Etats des lieux et perspectives, Cahiers du Collège d'Europe N° 5, Actes d'un colloque organisé en 2003 à Liège, (2007) 99–124.Google Scholar

84 Regulation 1612/68 of the Council, of 15 October 1968, on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, OJL 257, 2–12.Google Scholar

85 In Denmark labour market is fully covered, in Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands flexible provisions cover only certain sectors or certain professions.Google Scholar

86 Initially German and Austrian governments insisted on transitional derogations for certain sensitive sectors (e.g., construction, industrial cleaning, home nursing and security activities). This logic certainly dates back to consequences of the previous enlargements. Michael Dougan expressed an interesting opinion that the better alternative for Germany and Austria would be to require payment of their national minimum wage for posted workers from EU-8, despite the judgement in Mazzoleni. See Dougan, supra note 5, 138–139.Google Scholar

87 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Spain, France, Lithuania, Poland, UK. Even Norway and Iceland did not stay apathetic.Google Scholar

88 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (period 1 May 2004 - 30 April 2006), COM (2006) 0048 final, 8 February 8 2006.Google Scholar

89 Curie, supra note 78, 210.Google Scholar

90 Cremona, Marise, EU Enlargement: solidarity and conditionality, 30 E.L.Rev. 3, 3–22 (2005).Google Scholar

91 Case 265/95 Commission v. France, 1997 ECR I-443.Google Scholar

92 “Détriplement fonctionnel” as Prof. Douglas-Scott nicely phrases it. See Douglas-Scott, infra note 95, 639.Google Scholar

93 One could argue that human rights steadily gained their importance from the late 1960s on (Armin Von Bogdany, The European Union as a Human Rights Organization? Human Rights and the Core of the European Union, 37 CML Rev. 1307 (2000)). On of the first cases (often taken as a reference point) in which the Court explicitly refers to fundamental rights is traced back to the 1970s, namely Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 ECR I-1125. Active reference to the case-law of Strasbourg started only in the mid 1990s. it is interesting to note in the context of present paper (tacking fundamentalization of social rights) that mere in the 1970s one could observe the recognition of social and labour rights in the decisions of the ECJ.Google Scholar

94 For a profound analysis of the role of the ECJ in filling the empty box of fundamental rights in EC Law see Witte, Bruno De, Le rôle passé et futur de la cour de justice des communautés européennes dans la protection des droits de l'homme in L'Union europeenne et les droits de l'homme 895–935 (Pilip Alston, Mara Bustelo and James Heenan (eds.) 2001). in particular, 905–920 (for a comprehensive evaluation of the Court's role vis-à-vis national systems, access to jurisdictions, degree of protection, etc).Google Scholar

95 one could also recall declaration of the Charter of Fundamental rights, adoption of non-discrimination directives under Article 13 EC, and incorporation of human rights initiatives into policies such as the European Neighbouring policy (Cf., Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis, 13 C.M.L. Rev. (2006). With regard to Article 13 EC in the context of European citizenship see also Catherine Barnard, Article 13: Through the Looking Glass of Union Citizenship in Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, 75 (David O'Keeffe and Patrick Twomey (eds.) 1999).Google Scholar

96 For a detailed review see Piet Eeckhout, External relations of the European Union, Legal and Constitutional Foundations, 465–484 (2005).Google Scholar

97 Trevor C. Hartley, European Union Law in a Global Context 332–352 (2004)Google Scholar

98 For a comprehensive description of the situations, where the ECtHR found jurisdiction over actions involving the EU, as well as about interaction between two courts see Douglas-Scott, supra note 95, 629–665, (in particular, 632–639).Google Scholar

99 See Jacobs, Francis G., Human Rights in the EU: the Role of the Court of Justice 26 E.L. Rev. 331 (2001), Gráinne De Bárca, Fundamental Human Rights and the Reach of the EC Law 13 (3) O.J.L.S. 283–319 (l993), Rick Lawson, Confusion and Conflict? Diverging Interpretations of the ECHR in Strasbourg and Luxembourg, in The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe 219 (Rick Lawson and Matthijs de Bloijs (eds.) 1994), and D. Spielman, Human Rights Case Law in Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts: Inconsistencies and Complementarities, in Philip Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights 770 (1999).Google Scholar

100 In recent literature among other ways-out the following ones were proposed: (1) a solution “à la Keck” (with an interesting parallel to the revolutionary limits established by the Court in case Keck & Mithouard, 1993, supra note 28), (2) introduction of de minimis rule (exclusion from application of human rights derogation in the situations when no significant economic effect is evident), (3) “Cassis de Dijon solution” (with reference to Case 120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 ECR I-649, where the Court elaborated a compatibility test on the basis of the restrictive effects’ analysis under Article 28 EC escaping from the derogation of Article 30 EC). See Alberto Alemanno, Á la recherche d'un juste équilibre entre libertés fondamentales et droits fondamentaux dans le cadre du marché intérieur: quelques réflecions à propos des arrěts « Schmidberger » et « Omega », RDUE 4/2004, 709–751 (2004).Google Scholar

101 Especially with regard to the discussion on the role of Article 6 ECHR which often affects the third countries nationals. Cédric Chenevière, Régime juridique des ressortissants d'Etats tiers membres de la famille d'un citoyen de l'Union, in La libre circulation des personnes: Etats des lieux et perspectives, Cahiers du College d'Europe N° 5, Actes d'un colloque organise en 2003 a Liege, (2007), 125–144.Google Scholar

102 Vries, Sybe De, Public Service, Diversity and Freedom of Expression and Competition Law, ERA, 1/2005, 46–57 (2005).Google Scholar

103 Prechal, infra note 111.Google Scholar

104 Alston, Philip, Labour Rights as Human Rights, The Not so Happy State of the Art in Labour Rights as Human Rights, Volume XIV/1, OUP, 2006, 1–24. Also, Regina Kreide, The Range of Social Human Rights, 18 GLJ (2001), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=116 (last accessed on 18 November 2008).Google Scholar

105 Barnard, , supra note 95.Google Scholar

106 Douglas-Scott, supra note 95, 665.Google Scholar

107 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, O.J. 2000 c 364/01.Google Scholar

108 For a detailed analysis of the stages in the development of social and labor rights in EC Law see Stefano Giubboni, Social Rights and Market Freedom in the European Constitution: a Labour Law Perspective (2006).Google Scholar

109 Velluti, Samantha, The European Employment Strategy and the Challenges of Enlargement in Takis Tridimas (eds.), EU Law for the 21st Century: Rethinking the New Legal Order 415–436 (2004).Google Scholar

110 Id. Google Scholar

111 Prechal, Sasha, Equality of Treatment, Non-Discrimination and Social Policy. Achievements in Three Themes, 41 CMLRev. 533, 533–551 (2004); Ryan, Bernard, The Private Enforcement of European Union Labour in The Future of Remedies in Europe, 141, 141–147 (Claire Kilpatrick, Tonia Novitz and Paul Skidmore (eds.) 2000); Eugenia Caracciolo Di Torella and Annick Masselot, Pregnancy, Maternity and the Organization of Family Life. an Attempt to Classify the Case Law of the Court of Justice 26 E.L.Rev. 239, 239–260 (2001); Lisa Waddington and Mark Bell, More Equal Than Others. Distinguising European Union Equality Directives 38 CMLRev. 5S7, 5S7-611 (2001).Google Scholar

112 Velluti, , supra note 110.Google Scholar

113 Davies, Anne, Should the EU Have the Power to Set Minimum Standards for Collective Labor Rights in the Member States? in Labour Rights as Human Rights, 177–213 (Philip Alston (ed.) 2006).Google Scholar

114 Id., 316.Google Scholar

115 Davies, , supra note 113. Cf. also Erika Kovacs The right to strike in the European Social Charters, 26 Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 445, 445–475 (2005).Google Scholar

116 Id., 321.Google Scholar

117 Id. Google Scholar

118 Para. 275, 303 in the Opinion of AG Mengozzi (Eur. Court H.R., Gustafsson, Judgement of 25 April 1996, Report of Judgements and Decisions 1996-II; Eur. Court H.R., Sørensen v. Rasmussen, Judgment of 11 Ianuary 2006, unreported). In para. 302 AG discusses another Strasbourg case in the context of the overpowered Swedish trade unions (Eur. Court H.R‥, Evaldsson and Others v. Sweden, Judgement of 13 February 1996, Application no. 75251/01).Google Scholar

119 Para. 104, 105 (social purpose of the Community), para. 91 (the right to take a collection action is indeed a fundamental right as a general principle of EC Law).Google Scholar

120 Para. 108 (the obstacle at stake cannot be justified by the social purpose), para. 95 (collective action should be balanced against the internal market).Google Scholar

121 Ahlberg, Bruun and Malmberg, supra note 1. In particular, 163–164 (the reasoning pattern is to frame the right to strike into a public policy derogation to free movement of services, strong enough to pass the proportionality assessment). Thus, the authors hastily predicted that the Swedish model will not be endangered.Google Scholar

122 Further the juxtaposition is done to Commission v. France, [1997] supra note 91.Google Scholar

123 Case 36/02 Omega, 2004 ECR I-9609. The Court refers to Omega briefly in para. 93, 94 of Laval. Google Scholar

124 Case 346/06 Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen, 2008. In para. 42 the Court states: “[…]it does not appear from the case-file submitted to the Court that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is necessary in order to avoid the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security system, an objective which the Court has recognised cannot be ruled out as a potential overriding reason in the general interest”.Google Scholar

125 See Manfred WEISS, Enlargement and Industrial Relations: Building a New Social Partnership, 20 Int.J.Comp.L.L.I.R. 5 (2004).Google Scholar

126 Similarly Moreau induces the progress of ‘fundamental social rights’ from the perspective of “citizen-workers”. She demonstrates that the internal market is actually structured by social rights, including the right to collective bargaining. Marie-Ange Moreau, European Fundamental Social Rights in the Context of Economic Globalization, in Social Rights in Europe (Gráinne De Búrca and Bruno de Witte (eds.) 2005), esp. 370–371. In Laval the Court tackles the abuses of such structuring.Google Scholar

127 There are symptoms that Latvia itself experiences the lack of the construction workers due to the mass influx of the population to the EU-15. Also, see Migration and the Latvian Labor Market at http://latviaeconomy.blogspot.com/2007/08/migration-and-latvian-labour-market.html (last accessed on 18 November 2008).Google Scholar