Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:20:01.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Illusion of Protection and an Assumption of Responsibility: The Possibility of Swedish State Liability after Laval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Barend van Leeuwen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This chapter will look deeper into the question of horizontal direct effect in the Viking and Laval cases by focusing on the effects of the Laval judgment. It will be submitted that the Laval case was an example of the horizontal enforcement of the vertical right to be protected by the State against interference with one’s free movement rights under EU law. The trade union acted within a legislative framework which had been established by the State and which provided protection to the trade union. The CJEU’s judgment established that this protection had been illusory, and the Swedish State assumed responsibility by amending two pieces of legislation. However, the reasoning of the CJEU did not sufficiently recognise the vertical nature of the proceedings. As a result, the Swedish Labour Court granted Francovich damages against the trade union, but these damages did not adequately compensate Laval for its losses. Therefore, the extension of horizontal direct effect to trade unions has resulted in inadequate judicial protection in this case. In future cases which present themselves as cases between two private parties the CJEU should more carefully investigate the responsibility of the State. A more careful investigation would open up the possibility of a Francovich claim against the State, if the State bore responsibility for breaches of EU law committed by private parties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 14 , 2012 , pp. 453 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-438/05 International Transport Worker’s Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP et al [2007] ECR I-10779.

2 Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggandsarbetareförbundet et al [2007] ECR I-11767.

3 The only contribution with an exclusive focus on the direct effect question was Dashwood, A, ‘Viking and Laval: Issues of Horizontal Direct Effect’ in Barnard, C (ed), The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2007/2008 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar.

4 Arbetsdomstolens domar (Judgments by the Labour Court) 2009 No 89 of 2 Dec 2009. Unofficial English translation by L Carlson accessed at www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/documentazione/sentenze/07/Laval.pdf.

5 See most recently: Bernitz, U and Reich, N, ‘Case comment: The Labour Court Judgment in the Case Laval et Partneri’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 603-23Google Scholar; Rönnmar, M, ‘Laval Returns to Sweden: The Final Judgment of the Swedish Labour Court and Swedish Legislative Reforms’ (2010) 39 Industrial Law Journal 280-87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 23 May 2007 in Viking (n 1).

7 Case C-112/00 Schmidberger Internationale Transporte Planzuge v Austria [2003] ECR I-5659.

8 Case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959.

9 Schmidberger (n 7) paras 77–93.

10 Commission v France (n 8) paras 65–66.

11 Opinion of AG Maduro in Viking (n 1) paras 33–56. He partly relied on the German concept of mittelbare Drittwirkung.

12 Schmidberger (n 7) para 82.

13 Opinion of AG Maduro in Viking (n 1) paras 39–40.

14 Rönnmar, M, ‘Free Movement of Services versus National Labour Law and Industrial Relations Systems: Understanding the Laval Case from a Swedish Perspective’ in Barnard, C (ed), The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2007/2008 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2008) 495 Google Scholar.

15 The alternative would be more State control by way of legislation on, for example, minimum wages.

16 Malmberg, J and Sigeman, T, ‘Industrial Action and EU Economic Freedoms: The Autonomous Collective Bargaining Model Curtailed by the European Court of Justice’ (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 1115 Google Scholar.

17 Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULR(C)A) 1992, s 219.

18 Rönnmar, ‘Free Movement of Services’ (n 14) 495.

19 Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services [1997] OJ L18/1 (PWD).

20 PWD Art 3.1.

21 PWD Art 3.1.

22 Laval (n 2) para 71.

23 Laval (n 2) para 84.

24 Davesne, A, The Laval Case and the Future of Labour Relations in Sweden, Les Cahiers européens No 01/2009 (Paris, Sciences Po, 2009) 10 Google Scholar.

25 Consisting of three amendments to the Employment (Co-Determination in the Workplace) Act (1976:580), 1 July 1991.

26 Posting of Workers Act (1999: 678).

27 Davies, ACL, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ’ (2008) 37 Industrial Law Journal 126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 136.

28 ‘Action in Response to the Laval Judgment: Summary’, Swedish Government Official Reports = SOU 2008: 123 (Stockkholm, SOU, 2008).

29 Davesne, , The Laval Case (n 24) 11 Google Scholar.

30 ‘Action in Response to the Laval judgment: Summary’ (n 28) 39–45.

31 Rönnmar, ‘Laval Returns to Sweden’ (n 5) 285.

32 Rönnmar, ‘Laval Returns to Sweden’ (n 5) 286.

33 Rönnmar, ‘Laval Returns to Sweden’ (n 5) 285.

34 Arbetsdomstolens domar (Judgments by the Labour Court) 2009 No. 89 of 2 December 2009 (n 4) 23.

35 Bernitz, and Reich, , ‘Case comment’ (n 5) 616-22Google Scholar.

36 Case C-392/93 The Queen v HM Treasury ex parte British Telecommunications plc [1996] ECR I-1631.

37 Bernitz, and Reich, , ‘Case comment’ (n 5) 622-23Google Scholar.

38 Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and others [1991] ECR I-5357.

39 Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur v Germany and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029.

40 See in particular, British Telecommunications (n 36); Case C-5/94 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd [1996] ECR I-2553; Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 and C-188-190/94 Dillenkofer and others v Germany [1996] ECR I-4845; Case C-140/97 Rechberger and Greindl v Republic of Austria [1999] ECR I-3499; Case C-302/97 Konle v Republic of Austria [1999] ECR I-3099.

41 Dillenkofer (n 40) paras 27–28.

42 British Telecommunications (n 36).

43 Tridimas, T, ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?’ (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 301-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 302.

44 Laval (n 2) para 111.

45 Laval (n 2) para 120.

46 Lindstrom, N, ‘Service Liberalization in the Enlarged EU: A Race to the Bottom or the Emergence of Transnational Political Conflict?’ (2010) 48 Journal of Common Market Studies 1307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1317.

47 Case C-424/97 Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnartzliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (Haim II) [2000] I-5132.

48 Haim II (n 47) paras 46–48.

49 Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357.

50 Hedley Lomas (n 40).

51 Bernitz, and Reich, , ‘Case comment’ (n 5) 608 Google Scholar.

52 Tridimas, , ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law’ (n 43) 320 Google Scholar.

53 M Rönnmar, above n 15, 495.

54 Tridimas, , ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law’ (n 43) 319-20Google Scholar.

55 Ibid, 319.

56 Davies, , ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ (n 27) 136 Google Scholar.

57 Case C-36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale and others [1974] ECR 1405.

58 Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921.

59 Barnard, C, ‘Viking and Laval: An Introduction’ in Barnard, C (ed), The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2007/2008 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2008) 473 Google Scholar.

60 C-281/98 Angonese v Casa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I-04139.

61 The Employment Contracts Act (55/2001) and Posted Workers Act (1146/1999).

62 Viking (n 1) para 5.

63 Viking (n 1) paras 80–90.

64 Communication with Ms Raila Kangasperko, Government Counsellor, Ministry of Employment and the Economy, 10 March 2009.