Right to collective action in cross-border employment contexts: a fundamental social right not yet covered by EU private international law

The purpose of this article is to describe the right to collective action in crossborder employment contexts, recognised as a fundamental social right at the national and European levels. On the one hand, some national Constitutional Courts, such as the Portuguese and Italian ones, have dealt with social rights and the economic crisis, and have clearly stressed the prevalence of constitutional social rights over austerity measures. On the other hand, Council of Europe documents and European Union law recognise social rights, but they do not offer a proper means of protection. The European Court of Justice case-law shows a complex interrelation between social rights and economic freedoms. The main issue concerns the existing EU private international law on collective action, which has led to an inconsistent system. A new European collective action framework could be a possible solution to effectively guarantee fundamental social rights

Cross-border Collective Redress in the Employment Context under European Union Law

Il progetto di ricerca riguarda il tema del ricorso collettivo di carattere transfrontaliero in materia di lavoro nel diritto dell\u2019Unione europea (UE) e viene affrontato secondo un approccio che racchiude diverse prospettive. Infatti, nell\u2019ambito dei rimedi volti ad assicurare la protezione dei diritti dei lavoratori, gli stessi lavoratori o le organizzazioni rappresentative possono promuovere azioni collettive, che comprendono forme di sciopero e procedure di ricorso collettivo. L\u2019analisi si concentra inizialmente sulla tutela del diritto fondamentale all\u2019azione collettiva, soggetto al bilanciamento con le libert\ue0 economiche, in base alla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia e della sua interpretazione dei principi di effettivit\ue0 e proporzionalit\ue0, e alla luce della disposizione di cui all\u2019articolo 28 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. \uc8 stata riconosciuta la prevalenza delle libert\ue0 volte a realizzare l\u2019integrazione economica, pregiudicando in tal modo la protezione dei diritti sociali all\u2019interno dell\u2019UE, sebbene sia stata affermata la loro natura fondamentale e siano contenuti in strumenti europei e internazionali dedicati alla tutela dei diritti umani. L\u2019affievolimento dei diritti sociali si \ue8 verificato anche nel contesto della crisi economico-finanziaria, dove sono state sollevate questioni circa la legittimit\ue0 delle misure di austerit\ue0 che hanno inciso sui sistemi sociali nazionali. In questo contesto, la competenza e il ruolo della Corte nella salvaguardia dei diritti fondamentali sono stati criticati. Il quadro giuridico relativo alla protezione dei lavoratori in Europa \ue8 finalizzato a dare attuazione ai principi fondamentali sanciti dal diritto primario dell\u2019UE in materia di libera circolazione dei lavoratori, stabilendo procedure di esecuzione pubblica e riconoscendo il diritto di agire anche in procedimenti giudiziari. In considerazione dell\u2019aumento della mobilit\ue0 del lavoro si sono registrate difficolt\ue0 di regolamentazione delle situazioni peculiari che interessano i lavoratori distaccati, i quali svolgono solo temporaneamente attivit\ue0 lavorative all\u2019estero nell\u2019ambito della libera circolazione dei servizi. La legislazione sul distacco transfrontaliero, contenuta in due direttive, prevede elementi sostanziali, vale a dire norme minime in materia di condizioni e termini di lavoro, nonch\ue9 regole procedurali, volte a proteggere i lavoratori distaccati e a combattere il social dumping. Accanto ai meccanismi di controllo che coinvolgono le autorit\ue0 nazionali, \ue8 stabilito il diritto di agire individualmente oppure rappresentati da organizzazioni sindacali o simili. Tra i rimedi effettivi che gli Stati membri devono offrire ai fini di tutelare i diritti dei lavoratori, il ricorso collettivo pu\uf2 essere ritenuto un efficace strumento anche per ragioni di economia e di efficienza processuale. Il tema \ue8 oggetto di studi e sviluppi legislativi, tra cui rilevano le iniziative della Commissione europea sui principi comuni applicabili ai meccanismi di ricorso collettivo, seppur non vincolanti. Principalmente riferito alla tutela dei consumatori, ma anche in materia di antitrust e di diritto ambientale, l\u2019approccio orizzontale che \ue8 stato proposto appare utile per promuovere un\u2019azione europea relativa al ricorso collettivo, che potrebbe ugualmente essere ricondotto nell\u2019ambito del diritto di lavoro in virt\uf9 del riconoscimento del diritto all\u2019azione collettiva nella legislazione europea rilevante. Qualora le controversie siano caratterizzate da implicazioni transnazionali, gli strumenti di diritto internazionale privato devono trovare applicazione. Considerando i rilevanti regolamenti dell\u2019UE che disciplinano, tra le altre, questioni legate ai contratti di lavoro, vengono valutati i criteri di collegamento e la possibile applicazione delle disposizioni alle procedure di ricorso collettivo in materia di lavoro. Per quanto riguarda le norme sui conflitti di giurisdizione e di leggi, alla luce della tendenza giurisprudenziale e delle osservazioni avanzate dalle istituzioni europee nell\u2019ambito dei processi legislativi, la dimensione collettiva sembra non trovare spazio, richiedendo quindi regole specifiche da applicare in generale o in settori specifici. Alla luce di quanto sopra, considerazioni conclusive e proposte di modifica affrontano l\u2019opportunit\ue0 di inserire nella legislazione rilevante disposizioni specifiche relative al diritto all\u2019azione collettiva e al ricorso collettivo transfrontaliero attraverso un\u2019interpretazione sistematica del diritto dell\u2019UE.The present research project concerns the topic of cross-border collective redress in the employment context under European Union (EU) law, examined using a comprehensive approach. Indeed, among the remedies for the effective protection and enforcement of workers\u2019 rights, collective actions, which include forms of industrial action and collective redress procedure, may be resorted to by workers or their representative organisations. The analysis initially focuses on the protection of the fundamental right to collective action vis-\ue0-vis the economic freedoms on the basis of the Court of Justice case law and its interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality, and in light of Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The precedence of the economic integration pillars appears to have prejudiced the protection of social rights within the EU, although their fundamental nature is recognised and they are included in European and international human rights\u2019 charters. Social rights have been undermined even in times of financial-economic crisis, raising questions about the legitimacy of the austerity measures that have affected the national social systems. In this case, the competence of the Court to safeguard fundamental rights has been challenged. The legal framework for the protection of workers in Europe provides for the implementation of the main principles enshrined in EU primary law regarding the free movement of workers by establishing public enforcement procedures and recognising the right to act collectively, even in judicial proceedings. In view of increasing labour mobility, difficulties in regulating peculiar situations have emerged with regard to posted workers, who only temporarily engage in employment activities abroad in the framework of the cross-border provision of services. The legislation on transnational posting, consisting of two directives, provides for substantive elements, i.e. minimum standards of work terms and conditions, as well as procedural rules aimed at protecting posted workers from abuse and combatting social dumping. Alongside the mechanisms of control involving national authorities, the right to act individually or through trade unions or similar entities is envisaged. Member States are called upon to ensure in order to guarantee the protection of rights, collective redress is considered, in general, to be a viable means for reasons of procedural economy and efficiency of enforcement. Relevant studies and legislative developments are still in progress, including the European Commission\u2019s initiatives on common principles for collective redress procedures, although they are non-binding. The adopted horizontal approach, which principally refers to consumer protection, but also to antitrust and environmental law, is aimed at raising awareness of this procedural remedy, which may even be resorted to in the employment context by virtue of the right to collective action as guaranteed in EU law. Whenever disputes are characterised by transnational implications, private international law instruments are to be applied. Considering the relevant EU regulations addressing, among other issues, employment matters, remarks on the connecting criteria and the applicability of existing rules to collective redress procedures are put forward with particular regard to the employment context. As to the jurisdictional and conflict of laws provisions, the collective dimension does not appear to have found room in light of the jurisprudential tendencies and the observations of the European institutions submitted within the law making processes, thus necessitating specific rules, whether generally or pursuant to a sector-specific approach. Against this background, the concluding considerations and recommendations address the opportunity to include in the relevant EU legislation specific provisions related to the right to collective action and to cross-border collective redress

European Union law and the protection of posted workers: a question of competence

The mobility of workers across the European Union is one of the main priorities of the Commission. On 8 March 2016 it presented a proposal amending the Directive 96/71 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services with the aim of enhancing their rights\u2019 protection in light of the principle \u2018same pay for the same work in the same place\u2019. However, national Parliaments reached the required threshold to issue a yellow card for that proposal within the subsidiarity control mechanism. The European Parliament could not therefore take a decision until the Commission has stated how it intended to proceed. In its Communication of 20 July 2016 the Commission declared to maintain the proposal. It claimed the compatibility of the draft legislative act with the subsidiarity principle and argued that the objective of the proposed amending Directive can be better achieved at Union level, also because it deals with cross-border situations. Considering the national Parliaments\u2019 opinions and the Commission\u2019s reply, the question of subsidiarity will be examined in order to evaluate possible observations that may be pointed out by the European Parliament, and specifically by the responsible Committee on Legal Affairs. Against this background, some remarks will refer to the other withdrawn legislative initiative on the right to take collective action, the so called \u2018Monti II Regulation\u2019. The topic \u2018protection of posted workers\u2019 is part of my PhD research project concerning the cross-border collective redress in employment contexts within the EU private international law framework

Right to Collective Action in Cross-border Employment Contexts: A Fundamental Social Right Not Yet Covered by EU Private International Law

The purpose of this article is to describe the right to collective action in cross-border employment contexts, recognised as a fundamental social right at the national and European levels. On the one hand, some national Constitutional Courts, such as the Portuguese and Italian ones, have dealt with social rights and the economic crisis, and have clearly stressed the prevalence of constitutional social rights over austerity measures. On the other hand, Council of Europe documents and European Union law recognise social rights, but they do not offer a proper means of protection. The European Court of Justice case-law shows a complex interrelation between social rights and economic freedoms. The main issue concerns the existing EU private international law on collective action, which has led to an inconsistent system. A new European collective action framework could be a possible solution to effectively guarantee fundamental social rights

Lo scambio di informazioni tra le imprese nell'epoca di Internet: considerazioni sulle regole

The article addresses the problems created in terms of competition between companies by the so-called digital revolution and the increasing use of algorithms to determine the behaviour of companies. In particular, it examines the question of the lawfulness of the exchange of information between competitors through the use of platforms, in order to verify whether the current rules laid down in Article 101 TFEU are still suitable to regulate the new forms of collusion also between the algorithms themselves. After examining both national and European case-law and practice, the author argues that the need to introduce new rules which meet the needs of the digital economy has not yet emerged, but that at the same time a mere analogical extension of the current criteria, as transposed in the Commission\u2019s Guidelines, to innovations produced by new technologies is not at all straightforward

Jurisdiction over cross-border collective redress in the EU employment context

Collective redress as a procedural instrument for the protection of collective interests is envisaged in the EU legislative framework mainly on consumer and antitrust law. The Commission, first, recommended common principles on procedural requirements aimed at harmonising national systems of collective redress to be applied in various sectors and, then, submitted a proposal on representative actions for consumer protection. However, collective redress may be also relevant in the employment context, where it is strictly linked to the right to take collective action, and the recognition of the locus standi. In this framework, cross-border situations are not sufficiently addressed and rarely the Court of Justice intervened on this issue. In the absence of any specific EU rules on jurisdiction over cross-border collective redress, the existing provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation, and the special legislation concerning posted workers, should be applied, although adjustments may be required

Cross-border Collective Redress and the Jurisdictional Regime: Horizontal vs Sectoral Approach

In the context of private enforcement, collective redress is assuming an important role at European Union level as a procedural means to protect collective interests. Legislative developments show a twofold approach: a horizontal framework with common principles has been proposed, though with non-binding nature, and sector-specific legislation has introduced collective redress procedures mainly for consumers. However, also in other fields it shall be a viable procedural remedy, such as in the employment context. Rarely, the Court of Justice addressed collective proceedings and private international law issues, mainly related to the jurisdictional regime. Cross-border situations are not specifically addressed in the relevant Regulations, neither among the common principles or in the specific legislation. An exception is the reference to the extension of the application of the existing Regulations included in the Proposal on representative actions for consumer protection. The horizontal and sectoral approaches, including the applicability of the existing private international law rules, particularly on jurisdiction, are thus debated

Il riconoscimento degli effetti della kafalah: una questione non ancora risolta

La questione del riconoscimento nell'ordinamento italiano della kafalah, misura di protezione dei minori diffusa nei paesi islamici, \ue8 stata affrontata dai giudici di merito e di legittimit\ue0 in occasione delle richieste di ricongiungimento familiare o di adozione del minore. L'articolo commenta la sentenza del Tribunale per i minorenni di Brescia del 23 dicembre 2013, che ha rigettato la domanda di adozione del minore marocchino. Viene poi dato rilievo all'iter di ratifica della Convenzione dell'Aja del 1996, che menziona tra gli strumenti di protezione la kafalah, e delle possibili conseguenze che si potrebbero verificare in sede di riconoscimento dell'istituto straniero

Commento agli articoli 13-24 del d.lgs. 17 luglio 2016, n. 136

Gli articoli commentati riguardano l'esecuzione delle sanzioni amministrative irrogate a seguito dell'accertamento della mancata osservanza delle norme relative al distacco dei lavoratori. Sono previste procedure specifiche per la richiesta di notifica e il recupero della sanzione all'estero o proveniente da altro Stato membro, basate sui principi di cooperazione, riconoscimento reciproco e assistenza reciproca

L\u2019autonomia procedurale degli Stati membri alla prova della Carta dei diritti fondamentali

L\u2019applicazione delle norme processuali amministrative deve essere coordinata con il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali sanciti dalla Carta alla luce dell\u2019autonomia procedurale degli Stati membri. Al riguardo, con sentenza del 9 luglio 2020, n. 4403, il Consiglio di Stato ha affermato che se, in base alle regole procedurali interne, non \ue8 consentito dedurre per la prima volta in appello l\u2019incompatibilit\ue0 di una norma regionale con il diritto dell\u2019Unione, non \ue8 neppure possibile rilevare d\u2019ufficio tale contrasto. La pronuncia dei giudici amministrativi mette in rilievo i possibili limiti del primato del diritto dell\u2019Unione e della Carta negli ordinamenti nazionali quando si tratta di assicurare una tutela giurisdizionale effettiva, come garantita dall\u2019art. 47 della Carta stessa, ogniqualvolta siano in gioco situazioni giuridiche soggettive previste dall\u2019ordinamento europeo. Questione ulteriore \ue8 la possibilit\ue0 di esperire il ricorso per cassazione avverso la sentenza del Consiglio di Stato, ove viziata sotto il profilo dell\u2019applicazione del diritto dell\u2019Unione, su cui \ue8 stata chiamata ad esprimersi la Corte di giustizia adita dalle Sezioni Unite della Corte di Cassazione con ordinanza del 18 settembre 2020, n. 19598.The application of the administrative procedural rules needs to be coordinated with the respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter in the light of the procedural autonomy of the Member States. In this regard, in its judgment of 9 July 2020, n. 4403, the Italian State Council held that, pursuant to the domestic procedural rules, it is not possible to argue, for the first time, before the judge of appeal the incompatibility of a regional legislation with EU law, and that it is not even possible to raise such conflict ex officio. The ruling of the administrative judges highlights the possible limits of the primacy of EU law and of the Charter vis-\ue0-vis national legal systems in view of ensuring effective judicial protection, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, whenever subjective rights provided for by EU law are at stake. A further issue is the possibility of filing an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the State Council in so far as this judgment is in breach of EU law. The Court of Justice has been requested to state its position on such issue by the Joint Divisions of the Italian Court of Cassation with order of 18 September 2020, n. 19598