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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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