Prevalence of an Economic Right/Freedom Over a Social Right in a Horizontal Litigation Once Again
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article primarily examines the Achbita judgment within the context of the struck balance of competing rights/freedoms, i.e., the right to manifest religion and the freedom to conduct a business. It argues that with its lenient and one-sided application of proportionality and by affording the freedom to conduct a business of an employer almost an unfettered prerogative against the right to religious manifestation of an employee, the Achbita judgment could be included into the line of case law, such as Viking, Laval, Alemo-Herron and AGET-Iraklis, which provides for preference and prevalence of economic rights/freedoms over conflicting social rights. The judgment even extends that preference and prevalence to the fields having no crossborder element. If not having confirmed horizontal direct effect of Article 16 of the Charter and so recognized it in nature as a right rather than a principle in the sense of Article 52(5) of the Charter, the CJEU paves the way for consolidating this judicial trend. As a consequence in respect of the principle of non-discrimination on certain grounds, the judgment establishes different levels of protection for different grounds of discrimination and consolidates it by downplaying the right to manifest religion towards the bottom. Headscarf, the Principle of Non-Discrimination on the Grounds of Religion, Freedom to Conduct a Business, Corporate Neutrality Policy, the Margin of Appreciation of the Member States, the Hierarchy between the Grounds of Discrimination, Intersectional Discrimination
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".