MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410757258 · doi:10.1177/20319525251335869

The landmark case that went missing: Collective redundancies, unjustified dismissal and the denied horizontality of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in <i>C-196/23 Plamaro</i>

2025· article· en· W4410757258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc Steiert

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Labour Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDismissalCharterPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsCollective agreementFundamental rightsLandmarkCollective bargainingSociologyHuman rightsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interplay of EU law and fundamental social rights has been shaped by a series of landmark cases, such as the Viking-Laval saga, AGET Iraklis , and AMS . These cases, decided in the EU Court of Justice's Grand Chamber, have drawn criticism for privileging market freedoms over social rights. Similarly, another series of landmark cases has framed the horizontal effect of the fundamental rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, i.e., whether they can be invoked in private disputes. However, a 2024 decision went missing from both groups of landmark cases: C-196/23 Plamaro . This decision by the CJEU's Second Chamber offers critical insights into the Charter's evolving effectiveness and the unresolved tension between market and social imperatives in the EU legal order. Though ostensibly a technical interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC, the Second Chamber considered the Charter's rights to information and consultation within the undertaking and to protection against unjustified dismissal to lack substance, and therefore justiciability. This extends a third category of ‘ineffective Charter provisions’ beyond the textually mandated dichotomy between Charter rights and principles, and their different justiciabilities rooted in the Charter's general provisions. By so far including only social – and more specifically labour – rights, this category entrenches a hierarchy of rights that undermines the Charter's effectiveness and its very constitutional promise of indivisibility giving equal value to all types of fundamental rights. Moreover, Plamaro disrupts the scholarship developed after Bauer which had posited a trend toward horizontality for ‘most’ CFR rights, stronger EU social and labour rights, and the capacity of EU legislative instruments to inform Charter obligations. Based on the Charter's indivisibility, its effectiveness and the rich yet ignored substantive foundations of the Charter rights concerned, this article argues that a third category of ineffective Charter provisions should neither exist, nor be extended. Instead, the article provides pathways for a reimagination of the Charter's effectiveness in light of the principle of indivisibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Labour Law JournalSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207