Concertation: eurounitarian perspective

Author/s Fausta Guarriello
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/172 Language Italian
Pages 16 P. 703-718 File size 236 KB
DOI 10.3280/GDL2021-172013
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The introduction of the social dialogue procedure in the Social Policy Protocol and the Treaty on European Union enshrined the role of the social partners in drafting and implementing social and labour policy measures. The European social dialogue model has been a source of in-spiration for national legal systems as a normative reference for social consultation practices. After an initial, intense period of European framework agreements, which were given erga omnes effect by means of legislation, the model entered a crisis phase due to the scarcity of Community legislation in the social field and the emergence of soft law mechanisms, as well as the increasing difficulty of the social partners in concluding regulatory agreements. Recent-ly, the Commission, after activating the consultation phase, blocked the social partners’ request to submit a legislative proposal on the basis of the agreement they had signed, invoking the existence of a discretionary power to assess the appropriateness of a legislative measure. The Court of Justice confirmed this interpretation of the Treaty provisions, opening a breach in the European concertation model which seems completely out of place in the current political phase of rebuilding the social dimension.

Keywords: European social dialogue; Social partners; Representativeness; Concertation; Prin-ciple of democracy, European social pillar; Court of Justice; Commission’s discretionary pow-er to submit a proposal for a directive to the Council; Role of the European Parliament; Limited judicial control.

  1. Bellardi L. (2015). Sistema politico, legge e relazioni industriali: dalla promozione all’esclusione? In: Aa.Vv., Studi in memoria di Mario Giovanni Garofalo. Bari: Cacucci, 103 ss.
  2. Berger S. (1981). Organizing Interests in Western Europe. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Borelli S., Dorssemont F., eds. (2020). European social dialogue in the Court of Justice. An Amicus curiae workshop on the EPSU case. WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona” - Collective volumes- 10/2020. -- Testo disponibile al sito: docs/workingpapers/European-social-dialogue-in-the-Court-of-Justice-An-Amicus-curiae-workshop-on-the-EPSU-case/6089.aspx (consultato il 14.12.2021).
  4. Crouch C. (1998). Non amato ma inevitabile il ritorno al neocorporativismo. DLRI: 75 ss.
  5. Didry C., Mias A. (2005). Le Moment Delors. Les syndicats au coeur de l’Europe sociale. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.
  6. Dorssemont F., Loercher K, Schmitt M. (2019). On the duty to implement European framework agreements: lessons to be learned from the hairdressers case. ILJ, 48: 571 ss.
  7. Dorssemont F. (2020). La non promozione del dialogo sociale europeo: osservazioni sul caso EPSU. LD: 519 ss.
  8. ETUI (2018). Benchmarking Working Europe. Bruxelles: ETUI.
  9. Eurofound (2022). The involvement of national social partners in the Recovery and Resilience Plans. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  10. Golden D. (2019). Orwell in Brussels and the future of social dialogue. -- Testo disponibile al sito: (consultato il 14.12.2021).
  11. Guarriello F. (2017). Legge e contrattazione collettiva in Europa: verso nuovi equilibri? DLRI: 97 ss.
  12. Guarriello F., Lo Faro A., Zoppoli L., Bavaro V., Izzi D. (2020). La sentenza EPSU c. Commissione europea, ovvero: il dialogo sociale europeo messo sotto sorveglianza. RGL, II: 331 ss.
  13. Lapeyre J. (2017). Le dialogue social européen. Histoire d’une innovation sociale (1985-2003). Bruxelles: ETUI.
  14. Lyon-Caen A., Jeammaud A. (2021). La négociacion collective est-elle apte à créer le droit social de l’Union européenne? In: Cruz Villalòn J., Gonzàles-Posada Martinez E., Molero Maranòn, dir., La negociaciòn colectiva como instituciòn central del sistema de relaciones laborales. Estudios en homenaje al profesor Fernando Valdés Dal-Ré. Madrid: Editorial Bomarzo, 37 ss.
  15. Nahles A. (2021). Report on strengthening EU social dialogue. Brussels.
  16. Papadakis K., Ghellab Y. (2014). The governance of policy reforms in Southern Europe and Ireland. Social dialogue actors and institutions in times of crisis. Geneva: Ilo.
  17. Rainone S. (2020). After the “Hairdressing agreement”, the EPSU case: can the Commission control the EU social dialogue? Etui Policy Brief, European Economic, Employment and Social Policy, 15.
  18. Rainone S. (2021). La sentenza EPSU: l’Unione supporta il dialogo sociale, ma solo se appropriato. Testo disponibile al sito: international-community/la-sentenza-epsu-lunione-supporta-il-dialogo-sociale-ma-solo-se-appropriato/ (consultato il 3.1.2022).
  19. Scarpelli F. (1999). I nodi del neocorporativismo al pettine del diritto comunitario. RGL, II: 306 ss.
  20. Schmitter P., Grote J. (1997). Sisifo corporatista: passato, presente e futuro. SM: 183 ss.
  21. Treu T. (2021), Il ruolo chiave delle parti sociali nell’attuazione del PNRR. Notiziario Cnel, 4: 4 ss.
  22. Tricart J-P. (2019). Legislative implementation of European social partners agreements: challenges and debates. Etui Working Paper 2019.09.
  23. Vanhercke B., Verdun A. (2021). From the European Semester to the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Some social actors are (not) resurfacing. Etui Working Paper 2021.13.

Fausta Guarriello, La concertazione: prospettive euro-unitarie in "GIORNALE DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DI RELAZIONI INDUSTRIALI " 172/2021, pp 703-718, DOI: 10.3280/GDL2021-172013