Search

The AGET Iraklis case (C-201/15) revisits the Viking/Laval case law and sheds new light on the uneasy relationship between labour law and the EU’s fundamental economic freedoms. This article examines three sets of issues: the balance between the economic and the social in AGET Iraklis; the interplay between freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the EU Charter) and labour rights; and the Economic and Monetary Union dimension of the Court’s ruling in AGET Iraklis. The article makes three key claims. First, it is argued that the Court’s ruling marks a step towards a reconciliation between EU free movement law and labour law. Second, it is argued that Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights can be more ‘dangerous’ to labour rights when EU secondary law is interpreted in the light of that provision (such as in Alemo-Herron). In cases where both EU free movement law and Article 16 are engaged, the latter may not be equally influential. Third, it is noted that the margin of appreciation left to the domestic authorities might lead to further deregulation of the national labour law concerned, as Greece is subject to an economic adjustment programme.

European Court of Human Rights – Subsidiarity – Margin of appreciation – Deference – Theorising the margin of appreciation based on a large case law study – The ‘systemic’ (rethought ‘structural’) element of the margin of appreciation relies on a functional rationale related to the distribution of tasks within the European system for the protection of human rights and is based on non-merits reasons – The ‘normative’ (rethought ‘substantive’) element reflects normative flexibility and is based on merits reasons – Both margins reflect the principle of subsidiarity – The two margins most often interact in partial deference but the systemic margin can also lead to complete deference – Presumptions of complete deference in the case law of the Court – Implications of increased reliance on the systemic margin as the Court moves emphasis from ‘substantive’ to ‘procedural’ review.

Tension between ‘rights’ and ‘democracy’ principle in highly political cases – ECtHR’s wide margin of appreciation on elections put into question by recent cases –Sejdic-FincivBosnia-Herzegovina (BiH): ethnic criteria for standing in election violate Convention –ZornicvBiH: candidate’s exclusion from standing in election on account of her self-chosen identity violates P-12 –Mathieu-Mohin and ClerfaytvBelgiumoverruled? – ‘Integrative democratic tolerance’ approach: five legal and political principles to reconcile ‘rights’ and ‘democracy’ principle in highly political cases.

Procedural rationality review – Quality of law-making – Fundamental rights – Relation to margin of appreciation – Guidelines to avoid the use of double standards

In this essay I first situate the crucifix case in the frame of the Italian legal, political and cultural context, with references to similar cases decided in other European jurisdictions.I then highlight the novelty of the Lautsi case and emphasise its potentially positive implications in strengthening the counter-majoritarian role of the ECtHR, while at the same time remaining mindful of its possible negative consequences. If, as it seems likely, the Italian institutions and the Italian people will resist the European judgment, this could in fact set the premises for a weakening of the authority of Court.

Meanings of pluralism in different disciplines – Meaning in jurisprudence, esp. ECtHR – Feature of society and idea of society – Individual freedom v. group existence – Politics, religion, education – Pluralism as expression of rights and as guarantee of rights – Rejection of legal pluralism – Contradiction of elitist theory – State protection of pluralism and its limits

On March 16, 2006, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its final judgment in the case of Tatjana Ždanoka against the Republic of Latvia. Although not the first decision under Article 3 of the first Protocol, the Ždanoka v. Latvia case was important, because it allowed the Court to come to a decision on an aspect of Article 3, first Protocol, which in earlier case law had not extensively been dealt with by the ECtHR: the right to be elected. Moreover, the case allowed the Court to make some statements of principle on another question with which numerous member states of the Council have been dealing throughout the 20th century: how far may a democracy go in protecting itself from (allegedly) undemocratic parties, groups or individuals?

In the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey of 29 June 2004, the European Court of Human Rights decided in favour of Turkey. The banning of headscarves at the University of Istanbul did not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some years before the European Court already declared inadmissible a complaint by a Swiss teacher of younger children who was fired because she was not willing to leave off her headscarf while teaching. The complaint was manifestly ill founded. In other European countries the wearing of headscarves by teachers and pupils has lead to political and legal discussions and actions as well. In France, new legislation based on the so-called Stasi-report forbids pupils in primary and secondary state schools to wear clearly visible religious symbols. The reasons behind this act of parliament were problems allegedly caused by the wearing of headscarves. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that a ban on headscarves for teachers needs a basis in an act of parliament of the German states. It is up to the legislatures of the Länder to decide if such a ban should be issued. In the Netherlands, existing equal treatment law has been interpreted in such a way that teachers and pupils in state schools are allowed to wear headscarves.