Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Wcześniej: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Acta Iuris Stetinensis

ISSN: 2083-4373     eISSN: 2545-3181
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ

Lista wydań / 4/2020 (32)
Refusal to implement European social partners’ agreements: recent practice of the Commission

Autorzy: Dagmara Skupień
Słowa kluczowe: Article 155 TFEU agreements of European social partners implementation of agreements right to information and consultation public administration
Rok wydania:2020
Liczba stron:16 (77-92)
Liczba pobrań ?: 17

Abstrakt

European social partner agreements negotiated on the basis of Article 155 TFEU may be implemented at the level of the European Union at the joint request of the parties via a Council decision. Unlike the autonomous implementation, this ‘institutional’ method transforms the agreement into an EU legal act. This text analyses the refusal of the European Commission to submit to the Council, an Agreement that establishes a general framework for informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations and which was concluded within the EU Social Dialogue Committee for the Central Government Administration. It discusses the scope of the Commission’s competence to refuse to submit the agreement to the Council for implementation. Moreover, it presents a polemic on the judgment of the EU General Court that confirmed the European Commission’s broad scope of competence in refusing to submit to the Council a proposal for a decision to implement the agreement. The author argues that giving the Commission such a large margin of appreciation could undermine the European social dialogue. Moreover, the author explains why the above-mentioned Agreement should be implemented via a Council decision.
Pobierz plik

Plik artykułu

Bibliografia

1.Bercusson B., The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Constitution of the European Union, in: European Labour Law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, B. Bercusson (ed.), Baden-Baden 2006.
2.Broughton A., Commission rejects proposed agreement in hairdressing sector, 2013, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2013/commission-rejects-proposed-agreement-in-hairdressing-sector (accessed: 01.08.2020).
3.Delfino M., The reinterpretation of the principle of horizontal subsidiarity in European social law, “WP CSDLE ‘Massimo D’Antona’ INT” 2020, no. 152.
4.Garben I., Govaere S., The multi-faceted nature of better regulation, in: The EU Better Regulation Agenda: A Critical Assessment, I. Garben, S. Govaere (eds.), Oxford 2018.
5.Hierlemann D., Huesmann C., More Initiative for Europe’s Citizens, Future of Democracy, 2018, https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/ZD_EINWURF_2_2018_EN_final2.pdf, (accessed: 01.08.2020).
6.Laulom S., Better regulation and the social acquisition: Is the REFIT fit for purpose?, “ELLJ” 2018 9(1).
7.Schwarze J., European Administrative Law, London 2006.
8.Skupień D., European Social Partners’ Agreements – Current Situation and Perspectives, in: Obrana pracovního práva. Pocta prof. JUDr [The Defence of Labour Law], M. Bělinovi, J. Pichrt, K. Koldinská, J. Morávek (eds.), Prague 2020.
9.Skupień D., Porozumienia europejskich partnerów społecznych [Agreements of European Social Partners], Toruń 2016.
10.Vogel L., The fight to protect the hairdressers’ health: the inside story, 2018,
11.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325929496_The_fight_to_protect_hairdressers’_health_the_inside_story_2018/citation/download (accessed: 01.08.2020).
12.Welz C., The European Social Dialogue under Articles 138 and 139 of the EC Treaty: Actors, Processes, Outcomes, Alphen aan den Rijn 2008.