Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:48:48.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free Movement v. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union - the Laval and Viking Cases before the ECJ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Norbert Reich

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 two reference cases considered here concern the compatibility with EU law of industrial disputes and collective actions against EU companies exercising their free movement rights. The Swedish case, under a reference of the Arbetsdomstolen (Swedish Labour Court) of 15 September 2005 in litigation between Laval un Partneri Ltd (hereafter ‘Laval’) v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet (in the material that follows, ‘Bygnadds’) and others concerns the question of whether an industrial action of Swedish labour unions against a Latvian company that wanted to perform a work contract under Swedish procurement rules through the use of posted Latvian workers falls under the ‘freedom to provide service’ rules of Article 49 EC and, if this is the case, whether this action can be justified either under the posted workers directive, 96/71/EEC, or under a specific Swedish law exempting labour unions from liability in taking action against foreign-based companies (the so-called Lex Britannia; see sections E.I and H.II below).

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 01 February 2008 , pp. 125 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet,; the order for reference was published in Official Journal of the European Union C series- 281 / 10 of 12 November 2005; the author could make use of a provisional English translation of 18 October 2005. The order is based on a prior judgment 49/05 case A 268 / 04 of 29 April 2005. For earlier discussions of the litigation see Norbert Reich, Diskriminierungsverbote im Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, Zivlrechtswissenschaftler, Jahrbuch Junger, (2005) at 9.; Chaterine Barnard, EC Employment Law, vol. 3 (2006) at 283; Örjan Edström, The Free Movement of Services in Conflict with the Swedish Industrial Relations Model — or was it the Other Way Around?, Wahl, Nils and Cramér, Per, Swedish Studies in European Law 2006, 1 (2006). 129; Woolfson, Charles and Summer, Jeff. W., Labour Mobility in Construction: European Implications of the Laval Dispute with Swedish Labour. – 12 European Journal of Industrial Relation 49 (68) (2006); Hatzopoulos, Vassilis/Do, Thien Uyen, The case law of the ECJ concerning the free provision of services, 43 Common Market Law Review 978 (2006).Google Scholar

2 EC Directive 96/71 of 16 December 1996 E.P. and the Council of concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; Official Journal of the European Union, L series 18 (1997) at 1.Google Scholar

3 Case C-438 / 05, The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) & The Finnish Seamen's Union (FSU) v Viking Line ABP & Oü Viking Line Eesti., Official Journal of the European Union, C series, 60, 16, March 11. The High Court established jurisdiction because the headquarters of ITF were London and therefore jurisdiction was conferred to the English Court under article 2 Reg. 44 / 2001, without being able to raise the “forum non convenience” objections. See ECJ case C-281/02, Andrew Owusu v. N. B. Jackson et al., 2005 ECR I-1383. The High Court granted an injunction against ITF and FSU which was squashed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment to refer the case to the ECJ, EWCA (England and Wales Court of Appeal), 1299 (2005), per Waller LJ. See Barnard, Catherine, supra, note 1 at 272. The litigation is explained by Brian Bercusson, The Trade Union Movement and the EU: Judgment Day, 13 European Law Journal 279 (2007).Google Scholar

4 Council Regulation (E.E.C.) No. 4055 / 86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries, Official Journal of the European Union, L series 378, 31 December 1986.Google Scholar

5 Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03, Mobistar SA v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek), 2005 E.C.R‥ I-7723.Google Scholar

6 Case C-372/04, Yvonne Watts v. Bedford Primary Care Trust et al). –2006 E.C.R., I-4325, para. 92.Google Scholar

7 Case C-158/96, Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie, 1998 E.C.R., I-1931, para. 20.Google Scholar

8 Case C-209/03, The Queen (on application of Dany Bider) v. London Borough of Ealing, 2005 E.C.R., I- 2119, para. 42.Google Scholar

9 Case C-192/05, K. Tas Hagen, R. A. Tas v. Raadskamer WUBO, 2006 E.C.R., I-10451.Google Scholar

10 Case C-350/92 Spain v. Council, 1995 E.C.R., I-1985.Google Scholar

11 See the detailed comparative discussion of AG Jacobs in his opinion of 9 January 1999 in C-67/96 Albany International v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenenfonds Textielindustrie, 1999 E.C.R., I-5751, paras. 98–107 with regard to US law.Google Scholar

12 Supra, note 11 para. 60.Google Scholar

13 See case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659, para. 79.Google Scholar

14 Recueil des Arrěts de la Cour, 1996-II, 637 paras. 44–45.Google Scholar

15 Frédéric Sudre et al., Les grands arrěts de la Cour Européenne des droits de l'homme, 482, 2003.Google Scholar

16 Judgment of 11 January 2006, applications No. 52656 and 52620/99, paras. 58. Available at: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en, last accessed 31 January 2008.Google Scholar

17 Case C-499/04, Werhof v Freeway Traffic Services GmbH & Co KG, 2006 E.C.R. I-2397 para. 33.Google Scholar

18 For a discussion see Bruun, Niklas et. al, The Nordic Labour Relations Model, 1994 at 250-252; Reinhold Fahlbeck, Labour and Employment Law in Sweden, 1999, 26–33; Kerstin Ahlberg and Niklas Bruun, Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations 56, 117–124, (2005).Google Scholar

19 See, supra, note 11.Google Scholar

20 See the Court of Appeal, supra note 4 at para. 26, citing the judgment of the Finnish Supreme Court in Rakvere concerning the Swedish Laval case and the English/Finnish Viking case (KKO:2000:94).Google Scholar

21 Case C-540/03, European Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.RI-5769, para.38.Google Scholar

22 Case C-113/89, Rush Portuguesa v. Office National d'immigration, 1990 E.C.R., I-1417; C-369 and 376/98 Criminal proceedings against Arblade, 1999 E.C.R., I-8454.Google Scholar

23 Case C-445/03, Commission v. Luxembourg, 2004 E.C.R., I-10191, para 38.Google Scholar

24 Norbert Reich, Understanding EU Law2 84-85 (2005).Google Scholar

25 Case C-76/90, M Säger v. Dennemeyer & Co. Ltd, 1991 E.C.R., 1-4221, para. 12 and later cases.Google Scholar

26 Case C-208/00, BV v Nordic Construction Co Baumanagement GmbH, 2002, E.C.R., I-9919, para. 81.Google Scholar

27 Peter-Christian Müller-Graff and Rudolf Streinz, Art. 49, in, EUV/EGV Kommentar, (2003), s. margins 65–69.Google Scholar

28 Case 36/74, Walrave v. Union Cycliste internationale, 1974 E.C.R., 1405 paras. 15–19.Google Scholar

29 C-415/93, ASBL v. Bosman, 1995 E.C.R., I-4921 paras. 83–85.Google Scholar

30 C-281/98, R. Angonese v. Casa di Risparmio de Bolzano, 2000 E.C.R., I-4139, paras. 31–36.Google Scholar

31 C-309/99, J. C. J. Wouters et al/Algemene Raad von de Nederlandse Ordre van Advocaaten), 2002 E.C.R., I-1577 paras. 120; for a discussion see Norbert Reich, supra, note 24., at 18–19.Google Scholar

32 See, supra, note 1, Vassilis Hatzopoulos and Thien Uyen Do at 978.Google Scholar

33 For detailed description see the reference order of the Arbetsdomstolen of 18 October 2005 of the provisional English translation, supra note 1.Google Scholar

34 see, supra, note 18.Google Scholar

35 See, supra, note 22.Google Scholar

36 Id., para. 18.Google Scholar

37 Joined cases C-49/98 et al., Finalarte Sociedade de Construção Civil Lda v. Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft, 2001 E.C.R., I-7831, para. 39.Google Scholar

38 Case C-164/99, Portugaia Construcoes, 2002 E.C.R., I-787, confirmed by case C-445/00 Commission v. Luxembourg, 2004 E.C.R., I-10191, paras. 38–39.Google Scholar

39 Christine Langenfeld, in: E. Grabitz and M Hilf, Art. 137, para. 52 in: Das Recht der EU – Kommentar: „Vermeidung von sog. ‚Sozialdumping‘ – avoidance of social dumping“ Garrit Davies, Posted Workers: Single Market or Protection of National Labour Law Systems? 34 Common Market Law Review, 572-575 (1997), referring to the ambiguities of the directive; broader, Wolfgang Däubler, Die Entsenderichtlinie und ihre Umsetzung ins deutsche Recht, Europäische Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftsrecht 20, 615 (1997): „zwingende Gründe lägen in der Vermeidung der Arbeitslosigkeit, in der Erhaltung der Tarifautonomie in den betroffenen Branchen sowie in deren Schutz gegen Wettbewerbsverfälschung.“Google Scholar

40 There had been some critique, in particular in German legal literature, whether the directive could be based on the internal market jurisdiction of the EC, a critique however not taken up by the ECJ; see, Wolfgang Däubler, Id., at 614–615.Google Scholar

41 Chaterine Barnard, EC Employment Law, vol. 3 (2006)(, at 284–285; Martin Franzen, Die EG-Entsende-Richtlinie, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 1064–1070 (1997).Google Scholar

42 For a recent clarification see case C-341/02, Commission v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R., I-2733, para. 24.Google Scholar

43 See, supra, note 39, at 580.Google Scholar

44 See, supra, note 34, at 10.Google Scholar

45 Case C- 513/99, Concordia Bus Finland Oy AB v. Helsingin jaupunki, 2002 E.C.R., I-7213, paras.62 and 67 for environmental standards; C-280/00, Altmark Trans et al v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark, 2003 E.C.R., I-7747 para. 90 for public transportation.Google Scholar

46 Cited by Catherine Barnard, see, supra, note 41, at 282 footnote 271.Google Scholar

47 C-164/99, Portugeaia Construcoes, 2002 E.C.R., I-787, para. 30; see Hatzopoulos and Do, supra, note 1, at 974-975.Google Scholar

48 Id., 34.Google Scholar

49 See, supra, note 39 at 581.Google Scholar

50 Id., at 578; Catherine Barnard, supra, note 41 at 286–287; see Martin Franzen, supra, note 41 at 1071.Google Scholar

51 Case C-60/03, Wolff & Müller GmbH v. Jose Filipe Pereira Félix, 2004 E.C.R. I-9553, para.29.Google Scholar

52 See, supra, note 39 at 582.Google Scholar

53 Case C-3602, Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Bonn, 2004 E.C.R., I-9609, para. 35.Google Scholar

54 Id., at para. 36.Google Scholar

55 Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC), 2002 E.C.R., I-9919.Google Scholar

56 W.-H. Roth, ICLQ 2003 at 198, 207 concerning Statutenwechsel. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) has meanwhile modified its restrictive case law by judgment of 13 March 2003, Juristenzeitung, 825 (2003).Google Scholar

57 See, supra, note 13, para. 79.Google Scholar

58 Case C-265/95, Commission v France, 1997 E.C.R., I-6959.Google Scholar

59 See, supra, note 16 the Sorensen/Rasmussen judgment.Google Scholar

60 See, supra, note 3, at para. 47–50.Google Scholar

61 See, supra, note 58.Google Scholar

62 See, supra, note 14.Google Scholar

63 For a different opinion see the article by R. Rebhahn, Europäisches Gericht bringt Bewegung in das Arbeitskampfrecht, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23, 19 December (2007).Google Scholar

64 See, supra, note 13.Google Scholar

65 See, supra, note 53.Google Scholar

66 For a short overview see Norbert Reich, supra, note 24 at 323-327.Google Scholar

67 See the article by Rebhahn, , supra note 63.Google Scholar

68 Reich, Norbert, “Horizontal liability” in EC Law – „Hybridisation“ of remedies for compensation in case of breaches of EC rights, Common Market Law Review, 705-742 (2007).Google Scholar