Le sentenze Viking e Laval: la Corte di giustizia "bilancia" il diritto di sciopero
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay analyses the ECJ decisions Viking and Laval where the court was called to answer the question of her jurisdiction upon trade unions freedom of association and the right to take industrial action. The Author focuses on the court’s rationale with special regard to the following statements: (a) the horizontal effect of ECT articles 43 (freedom of establishment) and 49 (freedom of providing services), according to which private undertakings can rely upon free movement provisions against trade unions, since industrial action aims at concluding collective agreements and collective agreements fall within the scope of free movement provisions; (b) the right to take industrial action amounts at a fundamental right guaranteed by community law, but at the same time it also constitutes a restriction upon fundamental economic freedom, and it is a competence of the ECJ to strike a balance between them; (c) as far as the balancing between free movement and industrial action is concerned, industrial action, even when justified by the legitimate (non discriminatory) aim of workers protection, is subject to the proportionality test. \nA critical analysis of the above mentioned statements leads the Author to conclude the essay with some remarks on the theoretical and practical consequences of the ECJ interference in the balancing of “internal” constitutional values.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it