Member States’ Sovereignty in the Socio-Economic Field: Fact or Fiction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author assesses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) in which the European business freedoms collide with national labour law. The approach of the Court will be scrutinised with the aim of discovering the extent to which the Court encroaches upon the Member States’ autonomy in the field of labour law. This topic became popular directly after the landmark decisions in Viking and Laval of December 2007. Both cases addressed conflicts that were related to socio-economic diversity in the European Union following the enlargements. In the end, the Court decided where the balance between the conflicting economic and social values had to be struck and, by doing so, did not grant any room of discretion to the Member States. Since then, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services have obtruded themselves into the sphere of national labour law. The Court has broadened its jurisdiction in the socio-economic field not only in cross-border situations but also in internal situations via its interpretation of social policy Directives by virtue of Article 16 CFREU. The research shows that the Court is assessing the legitimacy of restrictions imposed by national labour law in seemingly different distinguishable ways since 2007. Although the Court does not seem to aspire to a uniform labour law system throughout the European Union, its approach applied in Viking and Laval cannot be considered a thing of the past. Due to poor reasoning, it is not clear when and where the Court draws the line. Since its rulings cannot readily (or even at all) be subject to political review, the ensuing legal uncertainty leads to anxiety about the Court being the ultimate decider in the socio-economic field.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".