Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local Interests and Social Integration in Europe

Integrating the Member States Under the European Pillar of Social Rights?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Between Compliance and Particularism

  • 575 Accesses

Abstract

One of the declared aims of the EU is to set up fair and well-functioning labour markets with the ultimate goal of creating better-performing economies and more equitable societies in Europe. The EU’s intervention is, however, grossly delimited by the competences and the autonomy retained by the Member States in the social domain as well as by the closely protected prerogative of the Member States to define the fundamental principles of the national system of social protection. Integration in the social field is also inhibited by the diversity of the institutional setups of local socio-economic models (capitalisms), which prevents institutional convergence among the Member States. In this light, social integration in the EU, especially when designed to be implemented through binding legal regulation, faces considerable difficulties, which raises doubts about the level of integration achievable. This may well be particularly true for the recent initiative to revive the social dimension of European integration under the European Pillar of Social Rights, which in the light of previous experiences has to overcome fundamental divergences of interests in the different Member States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Inter alia, Judgment of 30 November 1996, Gebhard, C-55/94, EU:C:1995:411.

  2. 2.

    For example, in connection with the issue of protection against unfair dismissal the EPSR makes only a general reference to a reasonable notice period and the right to (some) compensation, which falls short of the detail in other international norms, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards or the European Social Charter.

  3. 3.

    In coordinated market economies, firms rely mostly on non-market relationships when coordinating their activities, depending on extensive information exchange and collaboration inside networks. These include relationships through powerful employer associations, strong trade unions, large business networks. Their coordination is backed up by legal or regulatory systems which facilitate collaboration in such frameworks. Actors are encouraged to enter into collective bargaining and to conclude agreements with each other. Conversely, in liberal market economies the activities of firms are chiefly organised via competitive market arrangements and equilibrium is usually provided by demand and supply conditions in competitive markets. Instead of resorting to regulated coordination, economic actors remain in arms-length relationships with each other and their coordination takes place only in response to price signals. Their labour markets are characterised by a high degree of managerial prerogative on hiring and firing and by limited collective bargaining.

  4. 4.

    Farkas put the 25 European countries into 5 clusters based on the varieties in labour market flexibility (considering the proportion of part time and fixed term employment contracts) and industrial relations (especially trade union density and bargaining power).

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, [1989] OJ L183/1.

  6. 6.

    Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, [2001] OJ L82/16.

  7. 7.

    Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, [1998] OJ L14/9; Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, [1998] OJ L131/10; Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, [2008] OJ L327/9.

  8. 8.

    Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, [2003] OJ L299/9.

  9. 9.

    Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the provision of services, [1996] OJ L18/1.

  10. 10.

    Judgment of 27 March 1990, Rush Portugesa, C-113/89, EU:C:1990:142.

  11. 11.

    Judgment of 11 December 2007, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, C-438/05, EU:C:2007:772; Judgment of 18 December 2007, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet, C-341/05, EU:C:2007:291; Judgment of 3 April 2008, Dirk Rüffert v Land Niedersachsen, C-346/06, EU:C:2008:189; Judgment of 19 June 2008, Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, C-319/06, EU:C:2008:350.

  12. 12.

    Judgment of 11 December 2007, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, C-438/05, EU:C:2007:772, paragraph 77.

  13. 13.

    Ibid. paragraphs 56–66. For a detailed assessment, see de Vries (2013), p. 175.

  14. 14.

    Judgment of 18 December 2007, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet, C-341/05, EU:C:2007:291, paragraph 99.

  15. 15.

    Ibid. paragraphs 79–85.

  16. 16.

    Judgment of 3 April 2008, Dirk Rüffert v Land Niedersachsen, C-346/06, EU:C:2008:189, paragraph 39.

  17. 17.

    Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System, [2004] OJ L159/11.

  18. 18.

    Judgment of 12 February 2015, Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna, C-396/13, EU:C:2015:86, especially paragraph 41.

  19. 19.

    Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, [2008] OJ L327/9.

  20. 20.

    Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, [2018] OJ L173/16.

  21. 21.

    Ironically, the EPSR refers only to Article 31(2) EUCFR concerning the right of workers to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.

  22. 22.

    Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, [1993] OJ L307/18. It was replaced by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, [2003] OJ L299/9.

  23. 23.

    Exempted sectors included air, road, rail, sea, inland waterway and lake transportation, sea fishing, other work at sea, and the activities of doctors in training (Article 1(3)).

  24. 24.

    The UK argued that working time is not a health and safety, but an employment issue. Therefore, the legal basis used should have been either Article 100 (now Article 114 TFEU) or Article 235 TEC (now Article 352 TFEU), both of requiring unanimity in the Council.

  25. 25.

    Judgment of 12 November 1996, United Kingdom v Council, C-84/94, EU:C:1996:431.

  26. 26.

    Judgment of 3 October 2000, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, C-303/98, EU:C:2000:528.

  27. 27.

    Order of 3 July 2001, Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG) v Servicio Galego de Saúde (Sergas), C-241/99, EU:C:2001:371.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of 26 June 2001, The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, C-173/99, EU:C:2001:356.

  29. 29.

    Judgment of 9 September 2003, Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger, C-151/02, EU:C:2003:437, paragraph 48.

  30. 30.

    Judgment of 21 February 2018, Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak, C-518/15, EU:C:2018:82, paragraph 62.

  31. 31.

    Judgment of 10 September 2015, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation SA, C-266/14, EU:C:2015:578.

  32. 32.

    Ibid. paragraph 51.

  33. 33.

    Member States where opt out may be used in any/all sectors of the economy are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta and UK; Member States where the opt-out may be used only in certain sectors or by certain occupations are Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

  34. 34.

    Council 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, [1992] OJ L348/1 and Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC, [2010] OJ L68/13.

  35. 35.

    The most debated areas of the Commission’s proposal are the transferability and the remuneration to be paid.

References

  • Barnard, C. (2010). Solidarity and the Commission’s “renewed social agenda”. In M. Ross & Y. Borgmann-Prebil (Eds.), Promoting solidarity in the European Union (pp. 73–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., & Schramm, C. J. (2007). Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D. (2001). Between law and politics: The relationship between the European Court of Justice and EU Member States. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernaciak, M. (2014). Social dumping and the EU integration process. ETUI Working Paper 2014/06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2011). The state, internationalisation and capitalist diversity in Eastern Europe. Competition and Change, 11, 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T., Jorgensen, T., & Wiener, A. (1999). The social construction of Europe. London: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Community Charter. (1989). Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. Final draft No. 9430/2/89 REV 2 SOC 370 (30 Oct 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, P. (2012). EU enlargement, the clash of capitalism and the European social model. Journal of Comparative European Politics, 10, 476–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (1961). European Social Charter. ETS No. 35, adopted in 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. C. L. (2008). One step forward, two steps back? The Viking and Laval cases in the ECJ. Industrial Law Journal, 37, 126–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2002). The Posted Workers Directive and the EC Treaty. Industrial Law Journal, 31, 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, S. A. (2013). Balancing fundamental rights with economic freedoms according to the European Court of Justice. Utrecht Law Review, 9, 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S. (2017). From social pillar to new deal. In F. Vandenbroucke, C. Barnard, & G. de Baere (Eds.), A European Social Union after the crisis (pp. 194–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delors Committee. (1989). Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union: Report on economic and monetary union in the European Community. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://aei.pitt.edu/1007/1/monetary_delors.pdf

  • Eigmüller, M. (2017). Beyond the crisis: The societal effects of the European transformation. European Law Journal, 23, 350–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound. (2015). Opting out of the European Working Time Directive. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound. (2016). Working time developments in the 21st century: Work duration and its regulation in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound. (2017). Work-life balance and flexible working arrangements in the European Union. Dublin: Eurofound.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1985). Commission’s White Paper on the completion of the internal market COM 85(310) 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000). Report from the Commission: State of implementation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (“Working Time Directive”) COM (2000) 787 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions and the social partners at Community level in relation with the re-examination of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time COM (2003) 843 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010a). European Commission DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities study to support an impact assessment on further action at European level regarding Directive 2003/88/EC and the evolution of working time organisation, Annex 1 of Final Report, COM(2010) 802 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010b). Commission Staff Working Paper: Detailed report on the implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time SEC(2010) 1611 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012a). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services COM (2012) 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012b). Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services COM (2012) 130.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Speech of President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker on 22 October 2014: Time for Action—Statement in the European Parliament plenary session ahead of vote on the College, SPEECH/14/1525.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016a). Commission presents reform of the Posting of Workers Directive – Towards a deeper and fairer European labour market, Press release IP/16/466.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016b). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services COM(2016) 128 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights COM (2017) 250 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017b). Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights SWD(2017) 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017c). White Paper on the future of Europe. Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025 COM 2017(2025) final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2015). Gender equality in employment and occupation Directive 2006/54/EC. European Implementation Assessment. PE 547.546.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament, Council and Commission. (2017). Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights, ST-13129-2017-INIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament Research Service. (2016). Briefing EU Legislation in Progress Posting of Workers Directive, European Parliamentary Research Service, Monika Kiss, Members’ Research Service. PE 582.043.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2016). State of the Union 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S., & Treib, O. (2002). Transforming social policy in Europe? The EC’s parental leave directive and misfit in 15 Member States. MPIfG Working Paper 02/11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, B. (2016). Models of capitalism in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giubboni, S. (2006). Social rights and market freedoms in the European Constitution. A labour law perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. B. (1968). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces 1950–1957 (original ed. 1958). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 1–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 7, 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos, V. (2012). From hard to soft: Governance in the EU Internal Market. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 15, 101–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höpner, M., & Schäfer, A. (2012). Integration among unequals – How the heterogeneity of European varieties of capitalism shapes the social and democratic potential of the EU. MPlfG Working Papers 12/5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungarian Government. (2018). Communication of the Hungarian government on 5 October 2018. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/hungarian-government-contested-amendment-of-posted-workers-directive-before-court-of-justice-of-european-union

  • Jepsen, M., & Pascual, A. S. (2005). The European Social Model: An exercise in deconstruction. Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenner, J. (2003). Economic and social rights in the EU legal order: The mirage of indivisibility. In T. K. Hervey & J. Kenner (Eds.), Economic and social rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A legal perspective (pp. 1–26). London: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino, P. (2017). Sovereignty and subordination: On the limits of EU economic policy coordination. European Law Review, 42, 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebert, U. (2011). Reconciling market with Social Europe? The EU under the Lisbon Treaty. In D. Schiek & H. Schneider (Eds.), European economic and social constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsen, D. S. (2015). Battles on working time: Rejecting court influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Liberal intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (pp. 67–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, T. (2008). The Working Time Directive and the European Court of Justice. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 15, 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty: A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, A. (2006). Globalisation and the reform of European social models. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, D. (2011). Re-embedding economic and social constitutionalism. In D. Schiek, U. Liebert, & H. Schneider (Eds.), European economic and social constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon (pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, D. (2017). Towards more resilience for a social EU – The constitutionally conditioned internal market. European Constitutional Law Review, 13, 611–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. R., & Paunescu, M. (2011). Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantage from 1990 to 2005. Socio-Economic Review, 9, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarra, S. (2008). Viking and Laval: Collective labour rights and market freedoms in the enlarged EU. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 10, 563–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supiot, A. (2008). Europe won over to the “communist market”. Jacques Delors Institute, Debate: Viking-Laval-Rüffert: Economic freedoms versus fundamental social rights – Where does the balance lie?.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschueren, H. (2015). The European Internal Market and the competition between workers. European Labour Law Journal, 6, 128–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S. and Browne, J. (2003). Social Rights and Market Order: Adapting the Capability Approach. In T. K. Hervey, J.Kenner (Eds.), Economic and Social Rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—A Legal Perspective (pp. 27–44). London: Hart Publishing, Bloomsbury Collections.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences, ELTE University, Faculty of Law, Budapest, Hungary

    Sára Hungler

Authors
  1. Sára Hungler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sára Hungler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

    Marton Varju

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hungler, S. (2019). Local Interests and Social Integration in Europe. In: Varju, M. (eds) Between Compliance and Particularism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation