CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ TEN YEARS AFTER THE VIKING JUDGMENT … of two or more fundamental rights. The solution proposed by AG Cruz Villalón in 2010 as corresponding to the values and objectives of the Lisbon Treaty apparently dominated, by the decision of CJ’s judges in AGET Iraklis, over the solution proposed in the same year by AG Trstenjak. It is only to be added that in the case AGET Iraklis the decision was taken by the Grand Chamber of the CJ with the current President of the Court, K. Lenaerts, as the Chairman. Moreover, the judges did not reason in conformity with the Opinion of AG Wahl, who in June 2016 found no understanding for Greece’s measure and came to an unequivocal conclusion that the national rule in question was not suitable for the protection of workers and, in any event, went beyond what was necessary to achieve that purpose (para 76). Even though this case differed from the Viking case by not dealing with actions of independent trade unions and also by the fact that a substantial part of the rules on collective redundancies is governed by Directive 98/59/EC, the way in which the CJ approached the conflict of freedom of movement with the protection of social rights is undoubtedly important for the future. Optimal solution still in the pipeline From the point of view of political acceptability, the CJ’s approach in the AGET Iraklis case could be clearly welcomed. The emphasis on social priorities of the current EU and the helpful attitude towards Member States’ social protection measures are in their combination real new developments in its case law. The social face that the CJ demonstrated in the AGET Iraklis judgment is the most striking but not entirely exceptional example in the context of the latest evolution of its jurisprudence. Some commentators 17 find similar societal sensitivity also in the relatively recent cases C-396/13 Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry, 18 C-533/13 AKT 19 and C-115/14 Regiopost, 20 in which the CJ provided a favorable interpretation of the Directives on posting of workers (96/71/EC), on agency employment (2008/104/EC) and on public procurement (2004/18/EC). The latest trend in its case law on social assistance for migrant, but economically inactive (EU) citizens, sometimes referred to as benefit tourists, is also helpful to the financial stability, sustainability and autonomy of social systems of those Member States that are the most sought-after destinations of intra-EU migration. 21 And it has already been pointed out above that even the reference to Viking-Laval case law in the 4. 17 PECINOVSKY, P., Evolutions in the Social Case Law of the Court of Justice. The Follow-Up Cases of the Laval Quartet: ESA and Regiopost. European Labour Law Journal Vol. 7 (2016) No. 2. 294-309. Also BILTGEN, F., The Interpretation of the Court of Justice of the Eropean Union Fundamental Labor Rights. First Global Conference for International Labor Law Judges and Other Adjudicators – Ensuring Coherence in Fundamental Labor Rights Case Law. Challenges and Opportunities . Leiden 22. 4. 2016. http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SJEC-Conference-booklet-Final-15-September.pdf, p. 78. 18 C-396/13 Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna ECLI:EU:C:2015:86. 19 C-533/13 Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry and Shell Aviation Finland Oy ECLI:EU:C:2015:173. 20 C-115/14 RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz ECLI:EU:C:2015:760. 21 See the CJ judgments in Cases C-333/13 Dano EU:C:2014:2358, C-67/14 Alimanovic EU:C:2015:935, C-299/14 García-Nieto EU:C:2016:114, C-308/14 Commission v United Kingdom EU.C.2016:436. For comments see ŠMEJKAL, V. Saving EU and its Welfare States through Disincentives to Migration? On Recent CJEU Case Law Limiting Access of EU Migrants to Social Assistance. Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law Vol. 7/2016 pp. 154-170.

191