Derechos Fundamentales Y Libertades Económicas En El Ordenamiento Comunitario. La Jurisprudencia Viking Y Laval (Fundamental Rights and Market Freedoms in EU Law. 'Viking' and 'Laval' Case-Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Los asuntos Viking (C-438/05) y Laval (C-341/05) dan razon de como el Tribunal de Justicia, en una situacion de conflicto entre libertades economicas y derechos fundamentales, se ha limitado a concebir estos ultimos como meros obstaculos al funcionamiento del mercado interior, necesitados de justificacion y sometidos al principio de proporcionalidad. El analisis de ambas sentencias demuestra como las libertades economicas ocupan el lugar central a partir del que el Tribunal de Justicia despliega su enjuiciamiento, de tal manera que los derechos fundamentales afectados unicamente tienen cabida en la medida en que se conciben negativamente como una excepcion o limitacion a las libertades economicas. English Abstract: Viking (C-438/05) and Laval (C-341/05) cases show how the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a situation of conflict between economic freedoms and fundamental rights, has confined itself to conceiving the latter as mere obstacles to the functioning of the internal market, and thus requiring a justification and being scrutinized under the principle of proportionality. The analysis of both rulings shows how economic freedoms occupy the central place from which the Court of Justice of the European Union deploys its legal reasoning, in such a way that the concerned fundamental rights are merely conceived as an exception or limitation to market freedoms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".