Usurpation statt Delegation: Wie der EuGH die Binnenmarktintegration radikalisiert und warum er politischer Kontrolle bedarf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die in den Jahren 2007 und 2008 ergangenen EuGH-Urteile in den Fällen Viking, Laval, Rüffert und Kommission gegen Luxemburg haben Irritationen in Politik und Verbänden\nhervorgerufen und eine kontroverse Diskussion zum Stand der europäischen Wirtschaftsintegration und zum Stellenwert der „Integration durch Recht“ angestoßen. Dieser Aufsatz schlägt eine historisch-institutionalistische Perspektive auf den EuGH vor und stellt die jüngste Urteilsserie in den Kontext eines langen Prozesses politisch unkontrollierter Usurpation von Zuständigkeiten. Die vier Urteile beruhen auf Grundlagen,\ndie ihrerseits durch Richterrecht geschaffen wurden: Vorrang europäischen Primärund Sekundärrechts, Direktwirkung und Drittwirkung auf Private, allgemeine Beschränkungsverbote (statt Nichtdiskriminierung), soziale Grundrechte als allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze der Gemeinschaft. Der Beitrag diskutiert die machtpolitischen Quellen der Handlungsfreiheit des EuGH und hinterfragt, ob eine Aufnahme sozialer Grundrechte in die europäischen Verträge die vom Gericht angestoßene Radikalisierung der\nBinnenmarktintegration stoppen würde. Zur Erreichung dieses Ziels ist eine politisch kontrollierte Selbstzurückhaltung des EuGH notwendig, die – im Sinne des Art. 137 Abs. 5 EGV – den autonomieschonenden Umgang mit nationalen Lösungen zum Ausgleich zwischen sozialer Demokratie und kapitalistischer Ökonomie sicherstellt.\n\nThe 2007 and 2008 ECJ decisions on Viking, Laval, Rüffert and Commission versus Luxembourg have caused political irritations and sparked a controversial debate on the state of European economic integration and "integration through law." The paper offers a historical-institutionalist perspective and puts the recent controversial rulings in the context of a long history of politically uncontrolled usurpation of competencies. The four ECJ decisions rely on principles that were constructed by case law: supremacy, direct effect, bans on restrictions on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by European law (rather than non-discrimination) and social fundamental rights as elements of the general principles of Community law. The paper discusses the sources of the ECJ's freedom to introduce new principles and questions whether an inclusion of social fundamental rights in European Union treaties would put a stop to the judicially imposed radicalization of common market integration. I doubt that such an inclusion would fundamentally change the situation. Rather, in order to maintain distinct national solutions to the conflict between social democracy and capitalist economy, the paper recommends a strategy of politically enforced judicial self-restraint (in the sense of Article 137 [5] EC).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".