Whether economic freedoms prevail over social rights under European Union law?

Europos Ekonominė Bendrija, kurios pagrindu vėliau įsteigta Europos Sąjunga, buvo kuriama siekiant ekonominių tikslų. Nors Europos integracijos proceso pradžioje socialinės teisės ryškesnio vaidmens nevaidino, ilgainiui joms skiriamas dėmesys didėjo, o jų svarbos pripažinimas atsispindėdavo naujai priimamuose Bendrijos teisės aktuose. Naudojimasis socialinėmis teisėmis neretai sąlygoja ekonominių laisvių, užtikrinančių veiksmingą Europos vidaus rinkos funkcionanavimą, suvaržymus. Ginčus, kylančius dėl tokių suvaržymų, kaip institucija, atsakinga už Bendrijos teisės aiškinimą ir jos praktinį taikymą, nagrinėja Europos Teisingumo Teismas. Šio darbo tikslas – atskleisti ekonominių laisvių ir socialinių teisių santykį Europos Sąjungos teisės sistemoje naujausios Europos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudencijos kontekste. 2007–2008 metų laikotarpiu priimti keturi Europos Teisingumo Teismo sprendimai bylose, kuriose buvo nagrinėjami įsisteigimo laisvės bei laisvės teikti paslaugas apribojimai, inter alia, kolektyvinių darbuotojų teisių, ypač teisės streikuoti, atžvilgiu, susilaukė nevienareikšmio vertinimo politinėje, socialinėje bei akademinėje Europos bendruomenėse. Teismas nusprendė, kad kolektyviniai veiksmai varžo ekonomines laisves, ir nagrinėjo, ar šie suvaržymai gali būti pateisinami. Taigi, šiose bylose buvo įtvirtinta ekonominių laisvių ir socialinių teisių hierarchija, kurioje ekonominiai Bendrijos siekiai turi pirmenybę prieš socialinius. Europos Teisingumo Teismo sprendimai sukėlė diskusijas, ar kolektyviniai veiksmai patenka į Europos Sąjungos kompetencijos sritį, ar jų teisėtumo vertinimui galima taikyti proporcingumo kriterijų, ar laisvė teikti paslaugas ir įsisteigimo laisvė turi horizontalų tiesioginį veikimą ir tokiu būdu gali būti naudojamos prieš profesines sąjungas, galiausiai, ar Teismo sprendimai neprieštarauja Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo bei Tarptautinės Darbo Organizacijos nuostatoms dėl darbuotojų teisės imtis kolektyvinių veiksmų. Konfliktas tarp ekonominių laisvių ir socialinių teisių šiose bylose iš esmės buvo nulemtas Europos Sąjungos nevienalytiškumo, ypač išryškėjusio po naujų valstybių integracijos per pastaruosius dešimtmečius. Ekonomine veikla besiverčiantys naujųjų valstybių narių subjektai siekia pasinaudoti konkurenciniu pranašumu, mokėdami mažesnį darbo užmokestį laikinai komandiruotiems darbuotojams. Senosios Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės išreiškė susirūpinimą dėl kylančios socialinio dempingo grėsmės, tačiau jokių priemonių šiai grėsmei pašalinti ar sumažinti iki šiol Europos Sąjungos mastu imtasi nebuvo.

At the beginning, the European integration was entirely market-oriented, therefore social policy had no major role in shaping the future of the region. The social progress was perceived as the spontaneous outcome of the overall economic growth. Nonetheless, throughout the years the competence of the EU in the social domain had gradually expanded and resulted in the recognition of social rights with the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. The status of social rights have been further consolidated within the Community legal system and became equally important to the establishment of the internal market since the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect. The European Court of Justice, when dealing with the restrictions of economic freedoms, in its early case-law applied the non-discrimination model. According to the model, as long as nationals were subject to the same rules as persons from other Member States were, national law was regarded as being compatible with EU law. Subsequently, the Court introduced the market access test, pursuant to wich, any unjustified restriction liable to impede activities of out-of-state entities was to be held as constituting an infringement of EU law. Over the time the market access test prevailed over the non-discrimination model. In the years 2007 and 2008 the European Court of Justice gave judgments in four cases, also known as the Laval quartet. These cases concerned the balance between economic freedoms and social rights. The ECJ judgments in the Laval quartet provoked mixed reactions, particularly with regard to the recognition of the right to take collective action as a fundamental right, the application of the proportionality test on the right to take collective action, the horizontal direct effect of Articles 43 and 49 EC (Articles 49 and 56 TFEU) and the scope of Directive 96/71/EC. The ECJ recognized the right to take collective action as a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law. It held that the protection of workers is a legitimate objective which may be one of the overriding reasons of public interest. The recognition of this right results from its fundamental nature and the fact that it is protected under national law of Member States. However, the Court underlined that collective action may be subject to certain restrictions in respect of freedoms of movement. When dealing with the conflict between the right to take collective action and freedoms of movement, the ECJ applied the proportionality test. Since the burden was on the trade unions to prove that their action was justifiable and proportionate but not on those exercising the free movement rights, the Court established a hierarchy between economic freedoms and social rights, in which the latter are subordinated to the former. It shows the limited recognition to the right to strike within EU law. The ECJ introduced a last resort principle which requires to ascertain whether there are less restrictive means of the free movement rights at trade unions‘ disposal and whether they have been exhausted. However, it took no account that industrial action is intended to cause harm to the activities of employers and the more it does, the more effective it is likely to be. The ECJ held that Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (Articles 49 and 56 TFEU) have the horizontal direct effect on private entities. However, the Court‘s interpretation that the principles of free movement horizontally apply to trade unions is rather surprising and not without contradictions. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the right to take collective action falls outside the free movement provisions as it noted that certain restrictions on economic freedoms are not inherent when taking industrial action. The ECJ applied the market access test by stating that the collective action has the effect of making the exercise of the free movement rights less attractive. Thus, Court‘s reasoning confirms the subordination of the right to strike to economic freedoms. Directive 96/71/EC sets out the rules to be complied with when posting workers to other Member States. While the institutional debate upon the adoption of Directive 96/71/EC shows that it was aimed to be a minimum labour law directive, the ECJ considers it as a maximum directive of the free movement of services. The Court emphasized that an interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive as a minimum directive would amount to depriving the Directive of its effectiveness. A striking contrast is apparent between the ECJ judgments and the recent landmark decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the International Labour Organization. While the ECJ considers collective action to be one of the main ways to protect interests of workers, the ECtHR and the ILO recognises it as an essential element in collective bargaining and the freedom of association. Distinct perceptions of the status of the right to strike are likely to result in a conflict between the ECJ and the ECtHR or the ILO in the future. The Community possesses broad competence to regulate most of industrial relations. While Article 153(5) TFEU explicitly excludes EU competence over the right to strike, national law may still be caught within the scope of the free movement rights in respect of that right. Additionally, the Court recognized the Swedish autonomous collective bargaining model as incompatible with the exercise of the free movement rights. Such interpretation gives rise for the exploitation of lower wage costs and the phenomenon of social dumping. The ECJ rulings in the Laval quartet have already made impact on national labour systems of EU Member States. New or amended legislation have been adopted in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and other countries, while even Latvia will have to amend its labour law since some of its provisions are likely to infringe Directive 96/71/EC. The Court‘s decisions have sparked controversy among managament and labour, in European Parliament and Commission, however, no action have been taken as of today yet.