The case of Association de Médiation Sociale v. Union Locale des Syndicats CGT and Others is a landmark ruling in the European Union law that discusses the application of fundamental rights in national contexts. The decision highlights the horizontal effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Directive 2002/14/EC that guarantees employee rights to information and consultation. This case is crucial for law students interested in European labor law, as it provides a clear understanding of the application of EU fundamental rights in national contexts.

  • In the case of Association de Mediation Sociale Judgment of 15th January 2014, it was held that a right must be sufficiently defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights if a claimant wishes to use it to challenge the validity of national law.

Facts of the Case Association de Mediation Sociale Judgment

  • The Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 27 sets out that workers or representatives of such must be ‘guaranteed information and consultation in good time.’
  • This Article was implemented into European law through Directive 2002/14/EC, defining ‘employee’ and outlining the scope of application.
  • The French Labour Code required election of staff representatives for all establishments with 11 or more employees. However, this excluded workers with non-standard contracts from employee counts.
  • On 4th June 2010, D, a departmental union, appointed a representative of the trade union section of employer C.
  • C challenged that appointment on the grounds that it was not within the scope requiring a representative set out by the Directive.
  • When C appealed their initial loss, the Cour de Cassation referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling.

Issues in Association de Mediation Sociale Judgment

  • May the fundamental right of workers to information and consultation be invoked in a dispute between private individuals in order to assess the compliance with EU law of a national measure implementing the Directive?
  • In the affirmative, may those same provisions be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision which excludes from calculation of staff numbers in the undertaking, in particular to determine the legal thresholds for putting into place bodies representing staff, workers with assisted contracts?

Held by the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber)

  • Finding for D, that the Directive cannot be relied upon on its own in order to disapply a national provision in a dispute between private individuals. More specific expression was needed before it could be inferred that Article 27 prohibited the exclusion of certain employees for calculation of staff numbers.

Judgment

  • It is settled case-law that the encouragement of recruitment is a legitimate aim of social policy and the Member States have, in choosing measures capable of achieving their social policy, have a broad margin of discretion. However, this cannot frustrate the implementation of a fundamental principle of EU law.
  • An interpretation of Directive 2002/14 allowing the Member States to exclude from the calculation of staff numbers a specific category of works on the grounds that the French Government in this case are incompatible with Article 11 of that Directive. It would allow a Member State to evade that obligation which is a clear and precise result imposed by EU law. It must be concluded that the Directive precludes a national provision such as the French Labour Code.
  • The Directive 2002/14 Article 3(1), which allows the Member States to determine the method for calculating the employee threshold, fulfils all the conditions necessary to have direct effect. However, even a clear, precise and unconditional provision cannot of itself apply in proceedings exclusively between private parties.
  • “Nonetheless, the Court has held that a national court, when hearing a case between individuals, is required, when applying the provisions of domestic law adopted for the purpose of transposing obligations laid down by Directive, to consider the whole body of rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive…
  • In the case in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference that the Cour de Cassation is faced with such a limitation, so that Article L. 1111-3 of the Labour Code cannot be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2002/14” [38-40].

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The judgment in the Association de Médiation Sociale case has significant implications for the development of EU law, particularly in how fundamental rights are applied in member states:

  1. Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (C-555/07): This case is significant as it established that principles of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as set out in Directive 2000/78/EC, could be directly invoked in disputes between private parties. The ruling from Association de Médiation Sociale contrasts with this by indicating that not all principles or rights stated in the Charter or directives are automatically enforceable between private parties without specific national legislation supporting their application.
  2. Mangold v Helm (C-144/04): In this case, the ECJ held that the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of age is a principle of EU social law that must be observed independently of the directives. The Association de Médiation Sociale complements this jurisprudence by underscoring the need for clear legislative enactment at the national or EU level to ensure such principles have practical and enforceable effect.
  3. Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (C-91/92): This earlier case established the principle that directives alone cannot impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be invoked as such against another individual. This is echoed in the Association de Médiation Sociale ruling, which emphasizes that directives need proper transposition into national law to have horizontal effect.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below, you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

How has this judgment influenced subsequent cases regarding the enforcement of EU fundamental rights in national courts?

The judgment in Association de Médiation Sociale has reinforced the approach that EU Charter rights, when not expressly defined or given effect by specific legislation, are not directly enforceable in disputes between private parties. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases to emphasize that while the EU Charter underpins fundamental rights, its provisions need specific legislative backing to be actionable at a national level. For instance, it has been cited in cases related to labor rights, where the courts have looked for specific legislative transpositions of EU directives into national law before they can enforce these rights. This has led to a more cautious interpretation of the Charter’s direct applicability in national courts, ensuring that fundamental rights are enforceable only within the framework set by corresponding EU and national laws.

What are the practical implications for employees in the EU regarding their rights to information and consultation following this ruling?

Following the ruling in Association de Médiation Sociale, the practical implications for employees within the EU include a more defined framework for the enforcement of their rights to information and consultation. The judgment clarified that these rights are contingent upon their explicit incorporation into national legislation. This means that employees must rely on national laws transposing EU directives for their procedural rights at the workplace. Consequently, the effectiveness of such rights can vary depending on how comprehensively and rigorously member states implement EU directives into their domestic legal systems. Employees in the EU might face differences in the level of consultation and information rights depending on their country’s specific legislative approach to transposing EU directives.

How do member states ensure that their national legislation complies with EU law, especially in cases where the EU Charter’s rights are deemed principles rather than directly enforceable rights?

Member states ensure compliance with EU law by transposing directives into national legislation within prescribed deadlines. This process involves adapting the legal principles outlined in EU directives and the Charter into actionable laws that fit within the domestic legal framework. For rights that are deemed principles rather than directly enforceable, such as some of those in the Charter, member states must enact specific legislation that provides clear, actionable measures for these principles to be applied effectively. Additionally, national courts play a crucial role by interpreting domestic laws in light of EU principles and ensuring that these interpretations align with the intent of EU law. This judicial oversight helps maintain a coherent application of EU principles across different legal systems within the Union.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.