Industrial actions and EU economic freedoms: The autonomous collective bargaining model curtailed by the European Court of Justice

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1115-1146

  Malmberg, Jonas ^a   Sigeman, Tore ^a,b,c  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52149102224     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Case C-438/05, International Transport Worker's Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Esti, judgment of 11 Dec. 2007, nyr.
2. Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet and others, judgment of 18 Dec. 2007, nyr.
3. See Toth, The Law of the Internal Market, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of European Community Law, Vol. II (Oxford, 2005);
4. Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2007);
5. Woods, Free Movement of Goods and Services within the European Community (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004);
6. Grabitz and Hilf, Das Recht der Europäischen Union, Bd I, (Munich, Beck Verlag, 2001, 2006). On the longer-term objectives, see Art. 2 EC.
7. Baldwin and Wyplosz, The Economics of European Integration, 2nd ed. (London, 2006), chap. 10;
8. Caves, Frankel and Jones, World Trade and Payments. An Introduction, 8th ed. (Boston, 1999);
9. Krugman and Obstfeld, International Economics. Theory and Policy, 7th ed. (Boston, 2006), pp. 24 et seq.
10. Comparative advantage should not be confused with absolute advantage, see Krugman and Obstfeld op. cit. supra note 4, p. 34.
11. The idea is, for instance, expressed in the preamble of the ILO Constitution: "the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries". Cf. Hepple, Labour Law and Global Trade (Oxford 2005), pp. 13 et seq.
12. See, e.g., Eklund, Sigeman and Carlson, Swedish Labour and Employment Law; Cases and Materials (Uppsala, 2008).
13. Fahlbeck, "Derogation from Labour Law Statutes under Swedish Law", (2006-07) Juridisk Tidskrift (Stockholm), 42-56.
14. Cf. Evju, "Imperative law, derogation and collective agreements" in Festschrift für Rolf Birk (Tübingen 2008), 61-76.
15. In Finland there exists a form of erga omnes effect of collective agreements.
16. Cf. Bruun, in Dorssemont et al (Eds.), Cross Border Collective Actions in Europe: A Legal Challenge, (Antwerpen, Intersentia, 2007) p. 105 et seq. and 203 et seq.;
17. Fahlbeck, "Strikes, Lockouts and other Industrial Actions" in Studier i arbetsrätt tillägnade Tore Sigeman (Uppsala, 1993), pp. 61-84.
18. See, inter alia, Case C-55/94, Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, para 37, and Case C-415/93, Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921, para 104.
19. See, for example, Case C-43/93, Vander Elst, [1994] ECR I-3803, Case C-493/99, Commission v. Germany, [2001] ECR I-8163 and Case C-445/03, Commission v. Luxembourg, [2004] ECR I-10191.
20. th ed. (The Hague, 2006) pp. 351 et seq.
21. Cf. Case C-272/94, Guiot, [1996] ECR I-1905, Portugaia, supra note 13, Case C-445/03, Commission v. Luxembourg, [2004] ECR I-10191, Case C-244/04, Commission v. Germany, [2006] ECR I-602, Case C-490/04, Commission v. Germany, [2007] ECR I-6095, cf. as well Case C-255/04, Commission v. France, [2006] ECR I-5251.
22. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Dec. 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, O.J. 1997, L 18/1.
23. On the Directive, see Davies, "Posted workers: Single market or protection of national labour law systems?", (1997) CML Rev., 571-602; Blanpain op. cit. supra note 13, pp. 396 et seq.; Communication from the Commission: The implementation of Directive 96/71/EC in the Member States (COM(2003)458 final); Explanatory note from the Commission Services on the provisions relating to the posting of workers (Council document number 11153/04); Commission's services report on the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC, SEC(2006)439. Of ECJ case law on the Directive, see Case C-60/03, Wolff & Müller, [2004] ECR I-9553, and Case C-341/02, Commission v. Germany, [2005] ECR I-2733. See now also judgment of 3 April 2008 in Case C-346/06, Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen, nyr.
24. Lagen (1999:678) om utstationering av arbetstagare.
25. In its question, the national court referred also to Art. 12 EC, which lays down the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. According to the ECJ, Art. 12 EC applies independently only to situations for which the Treaty lays down no specific prohibition of discrimination, and this principle has been given a specific expression and effect by Art. 49. It was for that reason unnecessary to rule on Art. 12 EC in this case.
26. About the 1989 case, see International Labour Law Reports, volume 10 (Dordrecht, 1992), 432-440.
27. For a thorough analysis of the different legal arguments put forward during the proceedings, see Bercusson, "The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: Judgment Day", 18 ELJ (2007), 279-308.
28. Viking judgment, paras. 42-47, Laval judgment, paras. 89-95.
29. Case C-67/96, Albany, [1999] ECR I-5751.
30. Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch, [1974] ECR 1405, paras. 17-18, Case C-415/93, Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921, paras. 83-84, and Case C-309/99, Wouters and Others, [2002] ECR I-1577, para 120. In Case C-281/98, Angonese, [2000] ECR I-4139, the Court even allowed a horizontal direct effect in an employment situation which did not seem to concern a quasi-regulatory situation of a private body.
31. "it is for the national court to determine whether the jobs or conditions of employment of that trade union's members who are liable to be affected by the reflagging of the Rosella were jeopardised or under serious threat ... [and then] ascertain whether the collective action initiated by FSU is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective". Viking, paras. 83-84.
32. Viking para 43, Laval para 90.
33. Cf. e.g. Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, [2006] ECR I-5769, paras. 52-58.
34. Cf. A.G. Mengozzi in Laval, paras. 69-73.
35. See, inter alia, Case C-260/89, ERT, [1991] ECR I-2925, para 41 and C-36/02, Omega, [2004] ECR I-9609, para 33.
36. C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, paras. 74, 77, Omega, supra note 28, paras. 35-36.
37. Schmidberger, ibid., para 81.
38. Omega, supra note 28, paras. 37-38.
39. Gebhard, supra note 11, para 37. See as well cases cited in the Laval judgment, para 101. The Gebhard test also includes the requirement that (State) measures are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. This element is not at issue here.
40. See recital 40 of the Service Directive, 2006/123/EC.
41. See Arblade, supra note 13 (protection of workers), Wolff & Müller, supra note 16 (unfair competition) and other cases cited in the Laval judgment, para 103.
42. Gustafsson v. Sweden (Application No. 15573/89, judgment of 25 April 1996).
43. Evaldsson and Others v. Sweden (Application No. 75252/01, judgment of 13 Feb. 2007).
44. Cf. the Laval judgment, paras. 81 and 104.
45. For a slightly similar way of reasoning, see Case C-144/04, Mangold, [2005] ECR I-9981, paras. 64-65.
46. See e.g. Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2005), pp. 769 et seq.
47. As for other sectors, see the possibility given by the second subparagraph of Art. 3.10 of the Directive.
48. Cf. the alternative method rejected in Rüffert, supra note 16.
49. This aim is confirmed in Rüffert, supra note 16, paras. 30-36.
50. Para 110. The ECJ cites Arblade, supra note 13, para 43, which concerned a criminal procedure where the principle of legality (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) is of particular importance, compare Art. 7.1 of the ECHR.
51. As related in section 4.2. supra, the Byggnads claimed an hourly wage of 145 SEK which amount was based on statistics on average wages for the region.
52. COM(2003)458 final pp. 12-14. See also, since this paper was drafted, Case C-319/06, Commission v. Luxembourg, judgment of 19 June 2008, nyr.
53. Cf. the Opinion of A.G. Mengozzi, paras. 144-151.
54. The Swedish commission was given instructions by the Government on 10 April 2008 (Reference no Dir. 2008:38). The Danish Commission will publish its findings in June 2008.
55. Aarvaag Stokke, "The Anatomy of Two-tier Bargaining Models", 14 European Journal of Industrial Relations, (2008) 7-24
56. Cf. Wolff & Müller supra note 16, which concerned measures for enforcement of employment conditions after the period of transposition of the Posting of Workers Directive.
57. See e.g. Gustavsson, "Designing European federalism", 13 Swedish Economic Policy Review (2006), 163-183.
58. Scharpf, Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy, MPIfG Working Paper 07/3 (Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, July 2007).
59. Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, O.J. 2006, L 376/36. On the relationship between the Services Directive and the Posting of Workers Directive, see now Case C-319/06, Commission v. Luxembourg, supra note 45.
60. Proposal COM(2004)2 final, Art. 17.5.