Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Social Services of General Interest in the EU pp 73–94Cite as

Social Services of General Interest: The EU Competence Regime and a Constitution of Social Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

Abstract

In discussing the potential role of the EU, the Member States, their composite parts and civil society organisations in establishing social services of general interest at sub-national, national, transnational and EU wide levels, this chapter explores the EU competence regime for social services of general interest. Its analysis contradicts a tendency in academic writing to demand protection of national prerogatives for shaping welfare states against EU intervention at all costs, because this would be counterproductive for the progress of the EU project. It submits that an EU constitution of social governance should create mixed responsibilities so that the EU, states and civil society actors support each other in creating preconditions for social integration in the EU. It uses the field of social services of general interests as an example of applying this general theoretical concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Scharpf 1999; 2002.

  2. 2.

    Joerges 2010; Rödl 2010; Scharpf 2010; Syrpis 2007.

  3. 3.

    Schiek 2012, pp. 229–243 ms.

  4. 4.

    On the distance in some new Member States to re-establish social services that were dissolved with the demise of socialism see Rodrigues 2009.

  5. 5.

    Craig 2010, p. 312.

  6. 6.

    See more detail Schiek 2012, pp. 218–223.

  7. 7.

    More detail on this specific comparison Schiek 2010.

  8. 8.

    On its evolution Piris 2010, p. 310.

  9. 9.

    Ferrera 2010; Dawson and de Witte 2012, pp. 55–57.

  10. 10.

    CJEU, Case C-290/04 FKP Scorpio [2006] ECR I-9461, para 30 (tax law); CJEU, Case C-372/04, Watts [2004] ECR I-4325, para 94 (public health).

  11. 11.

    The notion was inspired by the notion of ‘de-legalisation’ (Joerges 2008), but goes beyond it in that it considers the legitimacy of different forms of legislation, e.g. statute (through parliament), collective agreement (through a process of counterbalancing of forces) and rules made in inherently legitimate interest organisations.

  12. 12.

    Schiek 2012, pp. 229–243.

  13. 13.

    Commission, Communication from the Commission, Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Social Services of General Interest in the European Union, COM(2006) 177 final, 26 April 2006, p. 4, on additional elaborations of the concept and its daughters see Chaps. 9 and 13 in this volume, by Neergaard and Szyszczak.

  14. 14.

    Maydell et al. 2006, pp. 5–12, for an overview of the emergence of wider social policy aims, Damjanovic and Witte 2009, pp. 53–56, for a critique of narrow approaches see Schiek 2001, 2012, pp. 34–38.

  15. 15.

    Leibfried and Starke 2008; Huffschmid 2005, pp. 65–70 and 235–243; Damjanovic and de Witte 2009.

  16. 16.

    Commission, Decision of 15 December 2009, E 2/2005, N 642/2009, The Netherlands, Existing and Special Project Aid to Social Housing, now under judicial scrutiny (GC, Case IVBN v. Commission T-201/10 pending), see on this van de Gronden 2011, p. 145.

  17. 17.

    Chap. 12 in this volume, by Baquero Cruz.

  18. 18.

    Schiek 2012, p. 34; Busemeyer and Nikolai 2010.

  19. 19.

    Van de Gronden 2011, pp. 135–137.

  20. 20.

    Hancher and Larouche 2011.

  21. 21.

    On these see Chap. 13 in this volume, by Szyszczak.

  22. 22.

    Arguably, these legal analyses were partly biassed in order to support Commission policy choices, and thus portrayed the Court in a less favourable light than could have been possible. See Chap. 12 in this volume, by Baquero Cruz.

  23. 23.

    Now Regulation No. 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Coordination of Social Security Systems, OJ 2004 L 166/1.

  24. 24.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 amending Regulation No. 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ 2004 L 158/77.

  25. 25.

    See Giubboni 2006, pp. 15–56.

  26. 26.

    For a recent analysis see de Witte 2011; for a preference of the term primacy over supremacy in an attempt to promote a heterarchical relation between EU and national law Avbelj 2011, for a long-standing proposal to re-conceptualise EU constitutionalism along the lines of conflicts of law see Joerges 2007; for a skilful defence of supremacy in a hierarchical model see Baquero Cruz 2008.

  27. 27.

    Ostrom 2010.

  28. 28.

    There has been some academic debate whether the omission of undistorted competition in the internal market as an objective of the EU as well as a means to achieve their aims from the Treaty text itself, and the subsequent re-introduction in protocol No. 27 has changed the importance of competition for the EU’s values (for the field of SGEI see Fiedziuk 2011, pp. 230–231). As Protocols have the same value as the Treaties, this change is purely cosmetic (Piris 2010, pp. 307–308).

  29. 29.

    Again this is discussed in Chap. 6 in this volume, by van de Gronden.

  30. 30.

    CJEU, Case C-271/08 Commission v. Germany (‘Riester Rente’) [decided on 15 July 2010, nyr].

  31. 31.

    CJEU, Case C-437/09 AG2R[2011] ECR I–7091, concerning an occupational health insurance scheme. The Court accepted the justification by France, which was based on the economic necessity to avoid ‘cherry picking’.

  32. 32.

    Craig 2010, p. 328.

  33. 33.

    Danwitz 2004, p. 266, only referring to the Draft Constitutional Treaty.

  34. 34.

    Knauff 2010, p. 734.

  35. 35.

    Council Regulation No. 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statue for a European Company (SE), OJ 2001 L 294/1, and Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001, Supplementing the Statute for a European Company with Regard to the Involvement of Employees, OJ 2001 L 294/22.

  36. 36.

    EP, Socialist Group, Proposal for a Framework Directive on Services of General Economic Interest, 2006. The Socialist and Democrats group has also already produced a draft for a SGEI Regulation (see Rapporteur: Proinsas De Rossa: Report on the Future of Social Services of General Interest, PE 438.251v02-00 A7-0239/2001, p. 20).

  37. 37.

    Consequently, the EP has stressed that ‘an EU framework regulation on SGEI, permissible under Article 14 TFEU, is not the central issue at this time’ (EP Resolution of 5 July 2011 on the Future of Social Services of General Interest, 2009/2222(INI), para 48.

  38. 38.

    See Chap. 6 in this volume, by van de Gronden.

  39. 39.

    On the role of collective self-help of workers see Eichenhofer 2007, pp. 31 and 48; Ritter 1991, pp. 88–95.

  40. 40.

    See Clasen and Viebrock 2008; Rie et al. 2011.

  41. 41.

    Ebbinghaus 2011.

  42. 42.

    The German system of extending obligations under collectively agreed holiday payment schemes to foreign service providers seconding workers to German building sites was (unsuccessfully) attacked before the CJEU in Case C-409/04 Commission v. Germany [2007] ECR I-7797; French legislation enabling collectively agreed provision of additional health insurance in certain artisan branches was (likewise unsuccessfully) attached in CJEU, Case C-437/09 AG2R [decided on 3 March 2011, nyr], a Dutch system of occupational pensions insurance was at stake in the CJEU, Case C-67/96 Albany [1999] ECR I-5751.

  43. 43.

    See the contributions in Kendall 2009.

  44. 44.

    This was defended by a number of claimants in the action leading to the CJEU decision in CJEU, Case C-73/08 Bressol et al. [2010] ECR I-2735 and by the Commission in CJEU, Case C-147/03 Commission v. Austria [2005] ECR I-5969.

  45. 45.

    See the facts underlying the ruling in CJEU, Case C-173/09 Elchinov [decided on 5 October 2010, nyr]: A Bulgarian citizen, suffering from a malignom in his right eye, was told by his health fund that the only treatment available was removal of the eye. Upon travelling to Berlin after deterioration of his condition, he received radiotherapy and now still has two eyes. Relying on former case law, the Court held that the Bulgarian health fund could not deny the reimbursement only on formal grounds, such as the requirement of the decision being taken before the actual treatment. Thus, the positive outcome from the perspective of the patient could have been avoided by the Bulgarian health fund by arguing that the fund’s sustainability would be threatened by upholding their claims (this is the essence of the NHS justification for withholding hip replacement from Mrs Watts, who, unable to endure constant pain any longer, sought relief in a French hospital; CJEU, Case C-373/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325, paras 103–105).

  46. 46.

    On solidarity as a constitutional paradigm new for the EU see Ross 2010, and Chap. 5 in this volume, by Ross.

  47. 47.

    This notion of two-tier citizenship does not discuss the rights of non-EU nationals (‘third country nationals’). This is only in order not to exceed the scope of a single chapter (on this division see Marzo 2011).

  48. 48.

    One example for such generosity is the Zambrano case (CJEU, Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [decided on 8 March 2011, nyr]), where the Court derived a right to a work permit from a child’s right to reside with his non-EU citizen parents.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, Case C-158/07 Förster [2008] ECR I-8507.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, Case C-208/07 Chamier-Glisczinski [2009] ECR I-6095, para 85.

  51. 51.

    Fligstein 2008 has made the valuable point that the positive aspects of European integration are experienced more widely by a small elite making use of their free movement rights.

  52. 52.

    Deftly summarised in the heading ‘Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients’ Hatzopoulos 2002.

  53. 53.

    CJEU, Case C-385/99 Müller-Faure and Riet [2003] ECR I-4509.

  54. 54.

    CJEU, Case C-173/09 Elchinov [decided on 5 October 2010, nyr].

  55. 55.

    Establishing EU level SGIs is a long-standing demand of the European Economic and Social Committee in an own initiative report What Services of General Interest Do We Need to Combat the Crisis? 2010, the committee reinforced the opinion that EU level SGI were necessary, OJ 2010 C 128/65, points 4.4–4.6. However, the report exempts SSGIs from these demands.

  56. 56.

    Taylor 2008, p. 165.

  57. 57.

    Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on activities and supervision of occupational retirement provision. OJ 2003 L 235/10, based among others on Article 95 EC (now 114 TFEU). The Directive is presently under review.

  58. 58.

    Ferrera 2009, p. 228.

  59. 59.

    Accordingly, the Czech Republic and Latvia did not implement the Directive initially, but only the Czech Republic was brought before the Court, losing its case (CJEU, Case C-343/08 Commission v. Czech Republic [2010] ECR I-275.

  60. 60.

    See on this Ferrera 2009, p. 230.

  61. 61.

    Council Regulation No. 1086/2006 of 11 July 2006, Amending Regulation No. 2866/98 on the Conversion Rates between the Euro and the Currencies of the Member States Adopting the Euro, OJ 2006 L 210/19.

  62. 62.

    Ferrera 2009.

  63. 63.

    Pechstein and Deja 2011.

  64. 64.

    Will and Kendall 2009. See also Chap. 13 by Szyszczak.

  65. 65.

    CJEU, Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.

References

  • Avbelj M (2011) Supremacy or primacy of EU law—(why) does it matter? ELJ 17(6):744–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2008) The legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the puralist movement. ELJ 14(4):389–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer MR, Nikolai R (2010) Education. In: Castles FG, Leibfried S, Lewis J, Obinger H, Pierson C (eds) The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 493–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Clasen J, Viebrock E (2008) Voluntary unemployment insurance and trade union membership: investigating connections in Denmark and Sweden. J Soc Policy 37(3):433–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2010) The Lisbon Treaty, law, politics and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Damjanovic D, de Witte B (2009) Welfare Integration through EU law: the overall picture in the light of the Lisbon Treaty. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R, Roseberry L (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU law. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp 33–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Danwitz T (2004) Die Rolle der Unternehmen der Daseinsvorsorge im Verfassungsentwurf [The role of services of general interest in the draft constitution]. In: Schwarze J (ed) Der Verfassungsentwurf des Europäischen Konvents [The draft constitution by the convention for Europe], Nomos, Baden–Baden, pp 251–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson M, de Witte B (2012) The EU legal framework of social inclusion and social protection: between the Lisbon strategy and the Lisbon Treaty. In: Cantillon B, Ploscar P, Verschuren H (eds) Social inclusion and social protection: interactions between law and policy. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B (2011) Direct effect, supremacy and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 323–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus B (2011) The role of trade unions in European pension reforms: from ‘old’ to ‘new’ poliltics? Eur J Ind Relat 17(4):315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenhofer E (2007) Geschichte des Sozialstaats in Europa [The history of the welfare state in Europe]. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrera M (2010) Mapping the components of social EU: a critical analysis of the current institutional patchwork. In: Marlier E, Natali D (eds) Europe 2020: towards a more social EU?. Peter Lang, Bruxelles, pp 45–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrera M (2009) National welfare states and European integration. In search of virtuous nesting. JCMS 47(2):219–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedziuk N (2011) Services of general economic interest and the Treaty of Lisbon: opening doors to a whole new approach or maintaining the status quo? ELRev 36(2):226–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N (2008) Euroclash. The EU, European identity and the future of Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Larouche P (2011) The coming of age of EU regulation of network industries and services of general interest. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 743–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2002) Killing national health and insurance systems but healing patients? CMLrev 39(4):683–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffschmid J (2005) Economic policy for a social Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2008) Integration through de-legalisation? ELRev 33(3):291–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2007) Rethinking European law’s supremacy: a plea for a supranational conflict of law. In: Dans B, Kohler-Koch R (eds) Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. MD, Lanham, pp 311–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2010) The idea of a three-dimensional conflicts of law as constitutional form. RECON On-line Work Pap 5:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall J (2009) (ed) Handbook on third sector policy in Europe. Multi-level processes and organized civil society, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauff M (2010) Die Daseinsvorsorge im Vertrag von Lissabon [Services of general interest under the Treaty of Lisbon]. Europarecht 45(6):725–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibfried S, Starke P (2008) Transforming the Cordon Sanitaire the liberalization of public services and the restructuring of the European welfare state. Soc Econ Rev 6(1):175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzo C (2011) A dual European social citizenship? In: Moreau M-A (ed) Before and after the economic crisis. What implications for the ‘European social model’?. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 170–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Maydell Bv, Borchardt K, Henke K-D, Leitner R (2006) Enabling social Europe. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance for complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100(3):641–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein M, Deja M (2011) Was ist und wie funktioniert ein EVTZ? [What is and how does an EGTC work?]. Europarecht 46(3):357–383

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter A (1991) Der Sozialstaat, Entstehung und Geschichte im Internationalen Vergleich [The welfare state, Origin and history in international comparison], 2nd edn. Oldenbourg, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Rödl F (2010) The labour constitution. In: Bogdandy Av, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Beck & Hart, Munich & Portland (Oregon), pp 623–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues S (2009) Towards a general EC framework instrument related to SGEI? Political considerations and legal constraints. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden J (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general economic interest. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 255–266

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2010) Solidarity—a new constitutional paradigm for the EU? In: Ross M, Borgaman-Prebil Y (eds) Promoting polidarity in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1999) Governing Europe—effective and democratic?. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (2002) The European social model: coping with the challenges of diversity. JCMS 40(3):645–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (2010) The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a “social market economy”. Soc Econ Rev 8(2):211–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiek D (2001) Artikel 20 Abs. 1–3 V: Sozialstaat [Comnmentary on the German constitution’s social state principle]. In: Denninger E, Hoffmann-Riem W, Schneider H-P, Stein E, Denninger E (eds) Alternativkommentar zum Grundgesetz [Critical commentary on the German constitution], vol 2. Luchterhand, Neuwied

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek D (2010) Europe’s socio-economic constitution after the Treaty of Lisbon. In: Dieterich T, Le Friant M, Nogler L, Kezuka K, Pfarr H, Dieterich T (eds) Individuelle und kollektive freiheit im arbeitsrecht, Gedächtnisschrift für Ulrich Zachert [Individual and collective liberty in labour law, In memoriam of Ulrich Zachert]. Nomos, Baden–Baden, pp 162–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek D (2012) Economic and social integration: the challenge for EU constitutional law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrpis P (2007) EU intervention in domestic labour law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PG (2008) The end of European integration: anti-Europeanism explained. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Gronden J (2011) Social services of general interest and EU law. In: Szyszcak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) Developments in services of general interest. TMC Asser Press/Springer, The Hague & Vienna, pp 123–153

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Rie T, Marx I, Horemans J (2011) Ghent revisited: unemployment insurance and union membership in Belgium and the Nordic countries. Eur J Ind Relat 17(2):125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Will C, Kendall J (2009) A new settlement for Europe: towards ‘open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society’? In: Kendall J (ed) Handbook on third sector policy in Europe: multi-level processes and organised civil society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 293–316

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Dagmar Schiek

Authors
  1. Dagmar Schiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dagmar Schiek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Studiestræde 6, Copenhagen K, 1455, Denmark

    Ulla Neergaard

  2. , School of Law, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom

    Erika Szyszczak

  3. , Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Comeniuslaan 4, Nijmegen, 6525 HP, Netherlands

    Johan Willem van de Gronden

  4. , Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schillerstraße 1, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the editors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schiek, D. (2013). Social Services of General Interest: The EU Competence Regime and a Constitution of Social Governance. In: Neergaard, U., Szyszczak, E., van de Gronden, J., Krajewski, M. (eds) Social Services of General Interest in the EU. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-876-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation