European Court of
Justice statistics for 2005 have recently been released and they show
wide variations in the implementation of EU directives among Member
States. They also cover referrals made by national courts to the ECJ
and, here again, differences in approach between countries show up in
the figures.
When a new directive is passed by
the European Union it must pass into the national law of Member States
to have effect. Usually governments are given three years to complete
this process. If the European Commission believes that implementation
has still not taken place, they send a ‘letter of formal notice’ to the
country concerned followed by a ‘reasoned opinion’ over a period of at
least four months. Only then can the offending government be taken to
the European Court of Justice. Therefore to have twenty cases brought
in one year shows a serious indifference to EU procedure. Yet this was
the record of Greece, the biggest villain, in 2005. Close behind came
Luxembourg (16) France (13), Germany (12) and Italy (11) while Sweden
was the most co-operative nation with only two convictions.
The figures also cover the number
of referrals that have been made by national courts when they have been
unsure of European Law as it affected a case that they were trying.
Here Germany (51), Belgium (36) and Luxembourg (21) come out on top,
well ahead of the UK and France where judges seem less keen on asking
for help. The kind of case dealt with is also changing. The principle
of free movement of goods, services, workers and capital as enshrined
in the EC treaty has led to an increase in both tax and social and
employment disputes. The European Review often reports on the
judgements on these which affect union members. This tendency has been
criticised by Austrian leader Wolfgang Schüssel after his
government lost a case: ‘Suddenly, judgements emerge on the role of
women in the German federal army, or on access of foreign students to
Austrian universities - that is clearly national law’.
Recent rulings from the European Courts
Closed
shops to be
abolished in Denmark
A judgement from the European Court of
Human Rights looks likely to have repercussions on the Nordic system of
industrial relations which is already in question following the ‘Laval’
case (see our last issue). A
student vacation worker and a
gardener brought a complaint to the court because they were obliged to
join a particular trade union as a condition of employment and had been
dismissed when they refused to do so. The ECHR found that the Danish
government had failed to enforce the European Convention article on
freedom of association. Though the ruling only affects the two workers
concerned, the two main Danish union confederations, LO and 3F,
immediately announced that they would no longer enforce closed shop
agreements.
Re-flagged ship employer’s injunction
quashed
English courts have been asked to decide
on an industrial dispute occurring many miles from the UK which has
echoes of the Irish Ferries row (see our previous
issue). Viking Line
is a Finnish ferry operator which has seven ships sailing to Estonia.
In 2003 they decided to move the registration of one of these, the
Rosella, from Finland to Estonia and replace the crew with Estonians at
much reduced wages. The Finnish seamen’s union (FSU) asked the
London-based International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) to
embargo all negotiation with Viking throughout the World. The company
wanted the court to stop this action on the grounds that it was
preventing them setting up in another EU Member State as guaranteed by
EU treaties. The Court of Appeal rejected this in referring the case to
the European Court of Justice who must decide if the aim of preserving
jobs and improving living conditions, also enshrined in the treaties,
takes precedence.
