Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:27:45.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fundamental Rights as a New Frame: Displacing the Acquis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2018

Sophie Robin-Olivier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Impact of fundamental rights on the social ‘acquis’ – Limited extension of social rights from the integration of the ‘acquis’ into the Charter of Fundamental Rights – How the Charter contributed to the renewed force of the economic freedoms – Shift from fundamental rights to ‘essential principles’ of uncertain nature in the European Pillar of Social Rights – Possible transformation in the approach to social issues through interdisciplinarity

Type
The Displacement of Social Europe – Special Section
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 96 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

La Sorbonne school of law (University Paris 1).

References

1 See Deakin, S., ‘Social Rights in a Globalized Economy’, in P. Alston (ed.), Labour Rights as Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2005) p. 25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 On the role of fundamental right in the field of labour law, see Lyon-Caen, A. and Lokiec, P. (eds.), Droits fondamentaux et droit social (Dalloz 2005)Google Scholar.

3 See Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 13 January 2009, n° 06-45562 (right to privacy used to resist mobility requested by the employer).

4 Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 13 July 2002, n° 99-43334 99-43336 (freedom to work used to challenge a non-compete clause included in the work contract).

5 Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 2 October 2001, n° 99-42.942 (right to privacy).

6 Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 6 February 2013, n° 11.11-740 (the Court considered that when a dismissal results from the worker’s action in court, it is deemed null since that constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to effective judicial remedy, even if there is otherwise just cause for dismissal).

7 Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 25 June 2014, n° 13-28.369.

8 ECJ 23 April 1986, Case 294/83, Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament.

9 See Countouris, N., ‘European Social Law as an Autonomous Legal Discipline’, 28 Yearbook of European Law (2009) especially p. 108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a detailed explanation of the limited force of social fundamental rights, see Fudge, J., ‘The New Discourse of Labour Rights: from Social to Fundamental Rights?’, 29(1) Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal (2007) p. 29 Google Scholar.

10 ECJ 8 April 1976, Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena.

11 Cf the abundant legislation in this field, including Directive 2000/43 of 29 June 2000 concerning discrimination on race and ethnic origin, OJ L 180 of 19 July 2000, p. 22; Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303 du 2 December 2000, p. 16 and Directive on equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation of 5 July 2006, OJ L 204 of 26 July 2006, p. 23.

12 This was illustrated, specifically, by the adoption of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348, 28 November 1992 p. 1), and Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 307, 13 December 1993 p. 1). Both directives quote the Charter in detail in their recital.

13 ECJ 26 June 2001, Case C-173/99, BECTU. For more recent confirmation, see ECJ 27 November 2011, Case C-214/10, Schulte and 24 January 2012, Case C-282/10 Dominguez.

14 This type of displacement corresponds to the second meaning of displacement in C. Kilpatrick’s introduction to this special issue (p. 4).

15 Cf Syrpis, P., ‘The EU’s role in labour law: An overview of the rationales for EU involvement in the field’, in A. Bogg, et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Labour Law (Edward Elgar 2016) p. 31-32 Google Scholar. For a contrasting approach to the impact of fundamental rights and the Charter, in the same book, see A. Davies et al., ‘The role of the Court of Justice in labour law’ p. 134.

16 See O. de Schutter, ‘L’affirmation des droits sociaux dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne’, in A. Lyon-Caen and P. Lokiec, Droits fondamentaux et droit social, supra n. 2, p. 153.

17 See, in particular, ECJ 3 March 2011, Case C-437/09, AG2R (which seems even stronger when compared to a decision on the same theme given by the French Conseil constitutionnel, 13 June 2013, n° 2013-672 DC). On this topic, see, recently, A. Supiot, ‘Mutualisation: de quoi parle-t-on ?’, Recueil Dalloz, 7 April 2016, p. 726.

18 This aspect of displacement, that we would call displacement by absorption, corresponds to the first notion of displacement described in C. Kilpatrick’s introduction to this special issue (p. 2) in the sense that the ‘acquis’ is ‘moved elsewhere’. But there is a nuance: the references in the Charter did not replace the social ‘acquis’. They copied it, and incorporated it, not without some changes, in another legal source.

19 ‘There is a considerable Union “acquis” in this field: Articles 154 and 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Directives 2002/14/EC (general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community), 98/59/EC (collective redundancies), 2001/23/EC (transfers of undertakings) and 94/45/EC (European works councils)’.

20 Which is the case for Art. 29 (right to access to placement services) and Art. 31 (right to fair and just working conditions).

21 On the uncertain effects of the Charter, see Robin-Olivier, S., ‘La contribution de la Charte des droits fondamentaux à la protection des droits sociaux dans l’Union européenne: un premier bilan après Lisbonne’, 1 European Journal of Human Rights (2013) p. 109 Google Scholar.

22 Protocol 30.

23 See, in particular, ECJ 11 November 2010, Case C-232/09, Danosa.

24 ECJ 24 April 2012, Case C-571/10, Kamberaj.

25 Directive 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ L 16, 23 January 2004, p. 44.

26 See paras. 91-92 of the Kamberaj case.

27 ECJ 12 February 2015, Case C-396/13, Sähköalojen ammattiliitto.

28 Directive of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, OJ 21 January 1997 L 18, p. 1.

29 See para. 26.

30 For a criticism of the Court’s reasoning on this matter, see S. Corneloup, 3 Revue critique de droit international privé (2015) p. 680.

31 Regulation 593/2008 of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 4 July 2008, L 177 p. 6.

32 ECJ 14 September 2016, C-184/15 and C-197/15, Martinez Andrés.

33 Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ L 175, 28 June 1999, p. 43.

34 ECJ 4 December 2014, Case C-413/13.

35 ECJ 21 September 1999, Case C-76/96.

36 ECJ 5 February 2015, Case C-117/14.

37 Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ L 175, 28 June 1999, p. 43.

38 See ECJ 10 September 2015, Case C-266/14, Tyco (on working time) and 25 February 2016, Case C-292/14, Stroumpoulis (concerning protection of workers in case of insolvency of their employer).

39 Cf ECJ 17 December 1970, Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft: this first landmark case to deal with fundamental rights protection in the EEC concerned the application, to an undertaking, of the principles of freedom of action and disposition, economic liberty and proportionality.

40 Opinion of AG Cruz Villalon in Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale, § 54.

41 ECJ 15 January 2014, Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale, § 45.

42 ECJ 5 February 1963, Case 26/62.

43 Cf Chalmers, D. et al., European Union Law, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press 2010) p. 271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blanquet, M., Droit général de l’Union européenne, 10th edn. (Sirey 2012) p. 281 Google Scholar.

44 ECJ 4 December 1974, Case 41/74, Van Duyn, § 14.

45 On this expansion, see, in particular: de Witte, B., ‘The Continuous Significance of Van Gend en Loos’, in M. Poiares Maduro and L. Azoulai (eds.), The Past and Future of EU Law (Hart Publishing 2010) p. 11 Google Scholar.

46 ECJ 1 March 2011, Case C-236/09, Test Achat.

47 ECJ 11 November 2014, Case C-333/13.

48 Directive of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 158, 30 April 2004, p. 77.

49 In particular, Art. 7(1)b requiring sufficient resources and health insurance to obtain a right of residence.

50 Opinion of AG Cruz Villalon in Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale, § 69.

51 ‘Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave’.

52 For an example: ECJ 15 January 1986, Case 41/84, Pinna (Art. 73(2) of Regulation no 1408/71 was declared invalid because it violated article 48 of the EEC treaty on free movement of workers).

53 ECJ 11 December 2007, Case C-438/05, Viking.

54 ECJ 18 December 2007, Case C-341/05, Laval.

55 ECJ 18 July 2013, Case C-426/11. For a critique of this decision, see Rémy, P., ‘L’arrêt Alemo-Herron de la CJUE et la directive transfert : faut-il encore prendre au sérieux la Cour de justice?’, 12 Revue de Droit du Travail (2013) p. 789 Google Scholar; Lhernould, J.-P., ‘L’actualité de la jurisprudence européenne et internationale. Le concessionnaire ne peut pas se voir opposer les conventions collectives postérieures au transfert d’entreprise’, Revue de Jurisprudence Sociale (2013) p. 654 Google Scholar; Driguez, L., ‘Effet du transfert d’entreprise sur les droits conventionnels des salarié’, Revue Europe (2013) p. 37 Google Scholar; Robin-Olivier, S., ‘Transferts d’entreprises : une jurisprudence à contresens’, RTD eur. (2014) p. 525 Google Scholar.

56 Directive of 12 March 2001, OJ L 82, 22 March 2001, p. 16.

57 The Court abandoned freedom of association as a means of limiting workers’ rights protected by the directive, a flawed reasoning applied in 9 March 2006, Case C-499/04, Werhof. For a well-informed commentary criticising, the reference to freedom of association, see Rémy, P., ‘Le renvoi à la convention collective dans le contrat de travail en droit allemand et la directive transfert (CJCE “Werhof”, 9 mars 2006)’, Droit social (2007) p. 341 Google Scholar.

58 See Parkwood Leisure Ltd (Respondent) v Alemo-Herron (Appellants) [2011] UKSC 26. In the opinion, Lord Hope mentioned (at § 47) that ‘under domestic law the matter depended on the law of contract, under which parties are at liberty to agree to abide by agreements arrived at by a process in which they do not, and are not required to, participate’.

59 Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 18 and 19 February 2016.

60 ECJ 30 April 2015, Case C-80/14, USDAW & Wilson; 13 May 2015, Case C-182/13, Lyttle.

61 Directive of 20 July 1998 on economic redundancies, OJ L 225, 12 July 1998, p. 16.

62 The Court resumed its progressive approach in another line of cases: ECJ 9 July 2015, Case C-229/14, Balkaya, and 11 November 2015, Case C-422/14, Pujante Rivera.

63 Supra n. 56.

64 ECJ 21 December 2016, Case C-201/15.

65 See para. 53.

66 See para. 69.

67 Supra n. 44.

68 For a critique of this decision, see E. Pataut and S. Robin-Olivier, ‘L’envahissante irruption de la liberté d’entreprise en Europe, Remarques sur l’arrêt AGET Iraklis’, in Mélanges en l’honneur d’Antoine Lyon-Caen (Dalloz forthcoming) and our observations on the case in Picod, F. (ed.), Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2016, Décisions et Commentaires (Bruylant 2017) p. 284 Google Scholar.

69 COM(2016) 127 final, 8 March 2016.

70 C (2017) 2600 final.

71 COM (2017) 250 final.

72 COM (2017) 251 final.

73 COM (2017) 206 final.

74 The ‘official text’ can be found online at <ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/social-summit-european-pillar-social-rights-booklet_en.pdf>, visited 8 January 2018.

75 A. Supiot, La gouvernance par les nombres (Fayard 2015).

76 New initiatives concern: work-life balance of parents and carers (proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing council directive 2010/18/EU, com/2017/0253 final); work contracts (revision of the written statement directive 91/533/EEC was launched on 26 Nov. 2017); access to social protection; and working time (cf the interpretative Communication of the Commission of 24 May 2017, 2017/C 165/01 on directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time).

77 Supra n. 64.

78 High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights: Implementing the UN protect, respect and remedy framework’ (2011) p. 5.

79 For instance, social mainstreaming based on Art 9 TFEU, or extending the scope of solidarity as a means of shielding activities from market rules. For an impressive list of new ideas, see the draft report for the European Parliament on a European Pillar of Social Rights, 13 September 2016, 2016/2095 (INI).