Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:46:51.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Justice and “Total Market” Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Emilios Christodoulidis

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.

The controversial decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the quartet of cases that are grouped under its “Laval/Viking jurisprudence” are rapidly becoming entrenched as a key dimension of the European Union (EU) constitutional imaginary. This comes with a certain “immunization” against challenge as they become much harder to treat as mistakes. In their elevated status they have aligned stances and expectational structures. They have also had significant impact on the “Nordic” models; Charles Woolfson shows, for example, how subsequent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision, the rulings of the Swedish Labour court has “seem[ed] to confirm that the ‘Swedish model' has, at the very least, been significantly redefined, if not fundamentally altered, in the light of Laval.” While EU lawyers largely sit it out in relative passivity, wondering what the fuss is really about, labor lawyers have been vocal in their disagreement. But the latter's voices in this debate—if we can call it such—have in turn been drowned out by the ululations of lawyers and theorists from the “new,” post-2004, EU countries loudly proclaiming a victory against the arrogance of the older Member States. If the workers of the Baltic states want to sell their labor—and their life—cheap, goes the “inclusionary” argument, why should they be constrained from doing so under protectionist regulatory policies that undercut their competitive advantage by those unwilling to rein in the exclusionary structures of social protection that limit access and opportunity for their workforce to join the Continent-wide economy? The massive impact that the decisions have had on the regulation of industrial relations in the countries of the European Union and on the position of the trade unions has hardly been ameliorated by the debacle that was the rapid withdrawal of the proposed Monti II Regulation in the face of resistance to it by national parliaments.

Type
Lisbon vs. Lisbon Part II: Workers
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 10: Special Issue—Lisbon vs. Lisbon , 01 October 2013 , pp. 2005 - 2020
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See generally Case C-438/05, Int'l Transp. and Workers’ Fed'n v. Viking Line ABP, 2007 E.C.R. I-10779 [hereinafter Viking]; Case C-341/05, Laval v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, 2007 E.C.R. I-11767 [hereinafter Laval].Google Scholar

2 Charles Woolfson, Christer Thörnqvist & Jeffrey Sommers, The Swedish model and the future of labour standards after Laval, 41 Indus. Rel. J., 333, 335 (2010).Google Scholar

3 Blanpain, Roger, Laval and Viking: Who pays the price?, in The Leval and Viking Cases: Freedom of Services and Establishment v. Industrial Conflict in the European Economic Area, xix, xxii (Roger Blanpain & Andrzej M. Swiatkowski eds., 2009) (“Was the industrial action, namely to boycott of Laval by the Swedish unions compatible with freedom of services? The Court said no, and rightly so.”); Alicia Hinajeros, Laval and Viking: The Right to Collective Action versus EU Fundamental Freedoms, 8 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 714, 728 (2008) (“It is doubtful that the Court could have dealt with the conflict … in any other way.”).Google Scholar

4 For one of the best analyses, see generally Anne Davies, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ, 37 Indus. L. J. 126 (2008); Catherine Barnard, A Proportionate Response to Proportionality in the Field of Collective Action, 37 Eur. L. Rev. 117 (2012); Claire Kilpatrick, Laval's Regulatory Conundrum: Collective Standard-Setting and the Court's New Approach to Posted Workers, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 844 (2009).Google Scholar

5 See generally Alain Supiot, L'esprit de Philadelphie: La justice social face au marché total (2010).Google Scholar

6 Weiler, Joseph, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2403 (1991).Google Scholar

7 Joerges, Christian, Will the Welfare State Survive European Integration?, 1 Eur. J. Soc. L. 4 (2011).Google Scholar

8 Id. at 10.Google Scholar

9 Hyman, Richard, Trade Unions and the Politics of the European Social Model, in 26 Econ. & Indus. Democracy 9, 29 (2005).Google Scholar

10 See Laval & Viking, supra note 1; Case C-346/06, Rüffert, 2008 E.C.R. I-1989; Case C-546/07, European Comm'n v. Fed. Rep. of Ger., 2010 E.C.R. I-439.Google Scholar

11 Supiot, supra note 5.Google Scholar

12 Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law (2012).Google Scholar

13 See Letsas, George, Harmonic Law: The Case Against Pluralism, in Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law 77–108 (2012).Google Scholar

14 Id. at 78.Google Scholar

15 See generally Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (1998).Google Scholar

16 Letsas, supra note 13, at 98–99.Google Scholar

17 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 42–43 (1998) (“In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity.”).Google Scholar

18 Habermas, Jurgen, Between Facts and Norms 253–61 (1995).Google Scholar

19 I refer here, among other examples, to what came to be known as “Albany” jurisprudence following the Court's decision in 1999 that granted collective agreements a clear immunity from anti-trust scrutiny and ring-fenced national systems of worker protection from the reach of EC internal market law. See Case C-67/96, Albany, 1999 ECR I-5751.Google Scholar

20 See generally Laval, supra note 1.Google Scholar

21 See generally Viking, supra note 1.Google Scholar

22 Laval, supra note 1, para. 98.Google Scholar

23 Id. Google Scholar

24 Id. para. 99.Google Scholar

25 Id. paras. 99–100.Google Scholar

26 Id. para. 103.Google Scholar

27 See id. paras. 106–11.Google Scholar

28 Id. paras. 72–73.Google Scholar

29 Id. para. 79.Google Scholar

30 Id. para. 103.Google Scholar

31 Barnard, supra note 4.Google Scholar

32 Laval, supra note 1, para. 88.Google Scholar

33 Id. para. 87.Google Scholar

34 On this, see generally Charles Woolfson, The Sense of Measure and Societies “Without Limit,” 19 Soc. & Legal Stud. 226 (2010); Epp Kallaste & Charles Woolfson, The Paradox of Post-Communist Trade Unionism: ‘You Can't Want What You Can't Imagine,' 20 Econ. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 93 (2009); Charles Woolfson, Labour Migration, Neoliberalism and Ethno-politics in the New Europe: The Latvian Case, 41 Antipode 952 (2009).Google Scholar

35 Woolfson, supra note 34.Google Scholar

36 Catherine Barnard, EU Employment Law (2012) 223.Google Scholar

37 Damjan Kukovek, Remarks to Harvard University: Whose Social Europe? (April 16, 2010) (as quoted in Barnard, supra note 4, at 123).Google Scholar

38 Id. Google Scholar

39 Supiot, supra note 5.Google Scholar

40 For a fascinating argument on this point, see generally Antonio Negri, Insurgencies (1999).Google Scholar

41 Viking, supra note 1, para. 79.Google Scholar

42 David Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law 162 (2004).Google Scholar

43 Id. at 165.Google Scholar

44 See Alexy, Robert, Constitutional Rights, Balancing and Rationality, 16 Ratio Juris 131 (2003).Google Scholar

45 See generally Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (1944).Google Scholar