The aim of this contribution is to analyse what these strong expectations by EPSU are based on. Did the EU indeed create institutional settings that justify those expectations and, consequently,... Show moreThe aim of this contribution is to analyse what these strong expectations by EPSU are based on. Did the EU indeed create institutional settings that justify those expectations and, consequently, did the Commission break the “promise”? Moreover, what narratives have coloured these institutional settings and to what extent has this contributed to such expectations? Three obvious narratives can be distinguished. The first narrative relates to the establishment of the social dialogue in historical perspective starting with the Val Duchesse meetings. The second narrative follows the regulatory developments in the field of EU social policy in general, with an emphasis of the roles of the Commission and Social Dialogue in those regulatory mechanisms. This is based on a review of a selected number of key documents dealing with, among others, EU social policy. The third narrative follows the perception of the social dialogue in the doctrine, especially in handbooks on EU labour law. These narratives together have created a kind of epistemic community about how to understand Social Dialogue in general and the relationship between Social Partners and the Commission. Understanding these narratives is important for any contextual as well as teleological interpretation of Articles 154 and 155 TFEU. Furthermore, combined these narratives may also provide insight in why there is apparently a gap between the expectations, of at least EPSU, and the practice that the indication of “broken promise” is given. Show less
Age is as discrimination ground included in Directive 2000/78/EC, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (further referred to as Framework Equality... Show moreAge is as discrimination ground included in Directive 2000/78/EC, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (further referred to as Framework Equality Directive or FED). Approximately twenty years on, there exists a substantive body of case law (I identified forty-eight cases for this article) from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The vast majority of these cases concern older workers, whereas a much smaller number of cases deal with discrimination younger workers. Over the course of time the impression has grown that the CJEU is more lenient in justifying measures that are disadvantageous to older workers compared with measures negatively affecting younger workers. This study attempts to find out whether this impression is correct. In other words, whether the CJEU is discriminating in age discrimination cases. Show less
This chapter takes a closer look at the productive partnership between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and asks whether the existing... Show moreThis chapter takes a closer look at the productive partnership between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and asks whether the existing legal framework guarantees the endurance of the cooperative dialogue between both courts. First, it summarizes the ground rules of their symbiosis, going over the status of the European Convention on Human Rights in EU law and the ECtHR’s recognition of the EU’s legal personality. Then, it briefly addresses the impact of the CJEU's Opinion 2/13 on the EU’s accession to the Convention before exploring, in section 3, the many forms that the judicial dialogue between the CJEU and the ECtHR has taken over the years and discussing the influence of the jurisprudence of one over the other. A final part asks whether it is possible to move beyond labels of comity and identify a legal duty for both courts to cooperate. Show less
Over the course of fifteen years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed a considerable body of jurisprudence on age discrimination. Approximately thirty cases is indeed... Show moreOver the course of fifteen years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed a considerable body of jurisprudence on age discrimination. Approximately thirty cases is indeed notable, especially when compared with other discrimination grounds enlisted in Article 1 FED. The vast majority of these cases deal with measures affecting older workers, particularly regarding the retirement age or pension schemes. A significantly smaller number of cases – only five – concern measures affecting younger workers. Research analysing these cases indicate that the CJEU has been rather lenient in accepting measures regarding older workers and more strict in accepting measures targeting younger workers.However, this approach potentially puts EU Youth Policy under pressure. Moreover, it raises the question of whether the Framework Equality Directive is not in fact hampering measures to improve the situation of young people. In other words, it should be determined whether the FED is a curse or a blessing for EU Youth Policy. Show less
It seems that the time of the employment contract as the standard legal device of employment is over and that a variety of employment relationships have emerged. Many forms raise questions and... Show moreIt seems that the time of the employment contract as the standard legal device of employment is over and that a variety of employment relationships have emerged. Many forms raise questions and uncertainties about social protection. One of these forms are false or quasi self-employed workers. In the case of FNV KIEM the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on this. In this contribution we assess to what extent the ruling of the ECJ has contributed to clarifying some of the qualification issues involved with these type of workers. Thereto, we describe how the case was raised in the Netherlands; we elaborate on the arguments raised in the subsequent national court decisions and the ECJ; we reflect on the notion of (false) self-employed from the perspective of the notion of undertaking/entrepreneur and that of employee in order to determine what the ECJ considers to be decisive requirements for each category; and we reflect on the meaning of the ruling of the ECJ in the FNV KIEM case for the Netherlands. Show less
Opinion 2/13, by which the CJEU declared incompatible with the EU treaties the long-negotiated draft agreement on EU accession to the ECHR, came as a shock to many observers. Yet, the relation... Show moreOpinion 2/13, by which the CJEU declared incompatible with the EU treaties the long-negotiated draft agreement on EU accession to the ECHR, came as a shock to many observers. Yet, the relation between the ECJ and the ECtHR has a glorious past, and can continue to have a bright future. While the dust kicked up by Opinion 2/13 settles, the article takes a step back and puts the ruling of the CJEU in a wider context. It recalls the long-standing historical relations between the CJEU and the ECtHR, and discusses the possible scenarios that may open up in the future. In particular, it claims that, even in the aftermath of Opinion 2/13, a virtuous competition between the CJEU and the ECtHR can have beneficial effect for the protection of fundamental rights, as evidenced by the case of judicial review of targeted UN sanctions. At a time of increasing frustration and preoccupation on the relation between the CJEU and the ECtHR, the article strikes a note of optimism, suggesting that the interaction between the two European supranational courts can still play a positive role for fundamental rights in Europe. Show less
This paper argues that the ECJ in its seminal Kadi judgment made the right decision and foreshadowed numerous reforms in the EU’s external action introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. It rightly... Show moreThis paper argues that the ECJ in its seminal Kadi judgment made the right decision and foreshadowed numerous reforms in the EU’s external action introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. It rightly rejected the approach presented by the Court of First Instance, which ultimately turned out to be a false friend of international law. By largely following the Advocate General’s Opinion, the Court maintained the superior human rights standard of the EU legal order. Without, however, jeopardizing the compliance of the Member States with their UN obligations right away, it sent a clear warning signal to the UN Security Council to exhaust the potential for reform of the targeted sanction regime. The Court showed that in the face of such global threats as terrorism as well as the undermining of basic human rights, we are all in the same boat together after all. Show less
