One step forward, two steps back? The Viking and Laval cases in the ECJ

Industrial Law Journal

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 126-148

  Davies, Anne C L ^a  

^a BRASENOSE COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44949163728     PISSN: 03059332     EISSN: 14643669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwn001     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice.
2. Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers' Federation and Finnish Seamen's Union v Viking Line (Judgement 11 December 2007).
3. Case C-341/05 Laval v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (Judgement 18 December 2007).
4. For background on the case in the domestic courts, see R. Eklund, 'The Laval Case' (2006) 35 ILJ 202.
5. Laval, above n 3, para 48.
6. On which see, generally, P. Davies, 'Posted Workers: Single Market or Protection of National Labour Law Systems?, (1997) 34 CMLR 571.
7. Directive 96/71, Article 3(1) and (8).
8. Directive 96/71, Article 3(8).
9. Above n 3, para 68.
10. Ibid, paras 69 - 70. The point is perhaps more forcefully expressed at para 100.
11. Ibid, para 70.
12. Ibid, para 78.
13. Ibid, para 80.
14. Ibid, para 81.
15. A point apparently accepted by the ECJ in Viking, above n 2, paras 36 - 37.
16. Above n 3, para 83.
17. Ibid, para 84.
18. Ibid, paras 86 - 88.
19. Ibid, paras 89 - 95. This argument is based on an analogy with (Case C-67/96) Albany International v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751, though that case was only discussed in Viking, above n 2, paras 48 - 55.
20. Ibid, para 90.
21. C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769, Case C-432/05 Unibet v Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR I-2271, Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld v Leden van de Ministerraad [2007[ ECR I-3633, Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission (11 July 2007).
22. Above n 3, para 94.
23. Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzäge v Austria [2003[ ECR I-5659.
24. Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs GmbH v Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609.
25. Above n 3, para 98.
26. Ibid, para 98.
27. Ibid, para 99.
28. Ibid, paras 99 - 100.
29. Ibid, para 101.
30. Ibid, para 103.
31. Ibid, paras 106 - 111.
32. Ibid, paras 112 - 120.
33. For analysis of this case prior to the ECJ,s decision, see B. Bercusson, 'The Trade Union Movement and the EU: Judgment Day' (2007) 13 Eu LJ 279;
34. T. Novitz 'The Right to Strike and Re-Flagging in the EU: Free Movement Provisions and Human Rights' (2006) LMCLQ 242, T. Novitz 'Labour Rights as Human Rights: Implications for Employers' Free Movement in an Enlarged EU' (2006-7), vol 9, Cambridge Yearbook of European Studies 357.
35. See http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/index.cfm. (last visited April 10 2008).
36. [2005] EWHC 1222 (QBD Commercial Court, 16 June 2005).
37. Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (as amended), Article 2 and Article 6(1).
38. [2005] EWCA Civ 1299 (CA (Civ Div), 3 November 2005). See A. C. L. Davies, 'The Right to Strike versus Freedom of Establishment in EC Law: The Battle Commences', (2006) 35 ILJ 75.
39. Above n 2, para 33.
40. Ibid, para 60.
41. Ibid, para 64.
42. Ibid, paras 36 - 37.
43. Ibid, paras 39 - 41.
44. Above n 19.
45. Ibid, para 52.
46. Ibid, para 72.
47. Ibid, para 73.
48. Ibid, para 77.
49. Ibid, paras 78 - 79.
50. Ibid, para 82. There is an interesting question here as to whether a collective agreement in English law would satisfy this test.
51. Ibid, paras 88 - 89.
52. Ibid, para 88 (my emphasis).
53. Ibid, para 87.
54. Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.
55. Case C-309/99 Wouters v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577.
56. Significantly, Article 39 EC was applied to a 'non-regulatory' situation in Case C-281/98 Angonese v Cassa di Riparmio di Bolzano [2000] ECR I-4139.
57. TUC Press Release 11 December 2007.
58. Case C-263/02 Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425.
59. Above n 21.
60. Protocol on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the UK.
61. See, generally, T. Novitz, International and European Protection of the Right to Strike (Oxford University Press, 2003).
62. ESC, Article 6.
63. Unison v UK [2002] IRLR 497,
64. and see K. D. Ewing, 'The Implications of Wilson and Palmer' (2003) 32 ILJ 1, 18.
65. Albany, above n 19.
66. Ibid, para 60.
67. Above n 23.
68. Directive 2006/123/EC, Article 1(7) (my emphasis). For discussion, see Novitz, 'Labour Rights', above n 33, 371 - 5.
69. Above n 23.
70. The Court cited Case C-369/96 Arblade [1999] ECR I-8453, para 36, Case C-165/98 Mazzoleni [2001] ECR I-2189, para 27, Case C-49/98 Finalarte [2001] ECR I-7831, para 33.
71. For a detailed analysis of the harm caused by industrial action, see Novitz, above n 60, Ch 4.
72. University College London Hospitals NHS Trust v UNISON [1999] ICR 204 (CA).
73. Express Newspapers v McShane [1980] IRLR 35.
74. See, for example, Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner [1984] Ch 37.
75. American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396.
76. 'Finish Shipping Group Settles Case Over Cheap Labour', Financial Times, Tuesday 4 March 2008.
77. Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383. For discussion, see A. Scott, 'Exclusionary Principles and the Judgments Regulation' (2007) 3 Journal of Private International Law 309, 313 - 14.
78. Above n 24.