Case Report on Laval, 18 December 2007 (Case C-341/05) and Viking, 11 December 2007 (Case C-438/05)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This case report examines the ECJ cases Laval and Viking focusing on three important issues. First, regarding Directive 96/71/EC and the posting of workers, the report provides a clarification of the key arguments submitted in the Laval case explaining that the collective agreement at issue falls outside the scope of the Directive. In doing so, background information on relevant rules and cases on cross-border posting of workers will be provided. Second, the report explains the Court's approach to horizontal implications of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC for trade unions. It is submitted that the Court uses the same, well-known, approach used earlier in regard to sporting associations and bar associations. Such private entities can, under specific circumstances, have the obligation to act in conformity with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC. Due attention is given to possible justification grounds. Finally, this case note investigates the implications of Laval and Viking from a fundamental rights perspective. The Court recognises collective action as a fundamental right under Community law, thereby relying on the Charter of fundamental rights. The use of this source by the ECJ receives specific attention as does the relationship between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".