14 February 2008, 16:52 CET

(/BRUSSELS/) – An EU court ruled on Thursday against a Spanish law that
Madrid has used to ward off foreign energy companies from making
takeovers of Spanish groups.

The Spanish law was adopted at the end of 1999 when French energy group
Electricite de France (EDF) attempted to get a foothold in the Spanish
market by targeting Hidrocantabrico.

The law allows the Spanish government, within two months of the foreign
acquisition, to either prohibit the exercise of voting rights or to make
them subject to conditions.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the measure was
“disproportionate” for Spain’s declared aim of securing its energy supply.

The European Commission has long fought Spain over the law and brought
the case before the Luxembourg-based ECJ in June 2006.

The European Union has frequently clashed with Madrid in recent years
over Spanish restrictions on foreign ownership of Spanish energy
companies, which Brussels sees as blatant and illegal protectionism.

The EU court ruling comes as EDF has again indicated interest in
entering the Spanish market and in particular in Spanish group Iberdrola.

/Text and Picture Copyright 2008 AFP. All other Copyright 2008
EUbusiness Ltd. All rights reserved. This material is intended solely
for personal use. Any other reproduction, publication or redistribution
of this material without the written agreement of the copyright owner is
strictly forbidden and any breach of copyright will be considered
actionable./

A European Court of Justice (18th December 2007) ruling that the right to take industrial action is restricted because of an employer’s freedom to provide services in other member states rides roughshod over the trade rights which have been recognised across the European Community for decades.

Thompsons Solicitors, the UK’s leading trade union law firm, say today’s decision in Laval is absurd.

As in the ruling in the Viking case last week, the ECJ emphasises the “fundamental” nature of the right to take industrial action.  But it then balances that right against the employers competing EU law rights.    In Laval this is specifically the right to freedom of provision of services.

The court said an objective of protecting workers is justified, and industrial action taken to prevent “social dumping” can also be justified.    But industrial action in support of union demands in member states to which workers are posted will not be justified where the demand exceeds the extent of the protections provided to workers under the Posted Workers Directive and clearly defined national legal requirements.

In other words, a union can only take action to achieve minimum terms and conditions which are prescribed by law.

Richard Arthur, Head of Trade Union Law at Thompsons Solicitors, the largest firm of personal injury and trade union lawyers, in the UK said:

“The ECJ’s ruling run roughshod over trade union rights which have been almost universally recognised throughout the European Community, and in numerous international treaties and instruments, for many decades.

“It is absurd for the ECJ to say that the right to take industrial action is a “fundamental” right forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law, and then to rule that the right is superceded where an employer complains that the union is seeking terms and conditions in excess of the minimum provided by the Posted Workers Directive.   The Posted Workers Directive is intended to set the minimum level of protection for workers posted to separate states.   It is ludicrous to suggest that a union is not entitled to take industrial action in support of demands in excess of that minimum level.

“In the last week, in the Viking and Laval rulings, trade unions have seen their international recognised rights to take industrial action relegated in priority by the ECJ below the business interests of employers. The rulings are poorly reasoned and inconsistent, and completely fail to recognise the dual purpose of promotion of social policy as well the optimisation of business conditions, which the ECJ says lies at the heart  of the European Community.

Editors Notes:
A Latvian company, Laval, posted workers from Latvia to work on building sites in Sweden.   It was unable to reach agreement with the Swedish building and public workers union, which began a blockade of Laval’s sites in Sweden.   The Swedish Electricians Union, none of whose members were employed by Laval, joined in with sympathy action.

Laval brought proceedings to the European Court of Justice  to have the industrial action declared unlawful, arguing that its freedom to provide services in another member state was infringed in circumstances where the rates sought by the Swedish unions exceeded those protected by the Posted Workers Directive.

The European Court of Justice, in a judgement delivered on 18th December, ruled;
 1.  The right to take industrial action is a “fundamental right”:
 2. Businesses have freedom to provide services across the EU;
 3.  Industrial action represents a restriction on that right;
4. Industrial action to prevent social dumping may amount to an overriding reason of public interest, which falls within the scope of protection workers:
5. In the context pf posted workers, industrial action can not be justified where the pay level sought exceed any prescribed by national or European law; and
 6. Rules on industrial action in member states to which workers are posted which fail to take into account collective agreements in the original state of establishment of the business discriminate against that business.

•  
  Tuesday February 4th, 2008 mo Mrs

UNION CAMPAIGNS FOR ‘NO’ VOTE IN EURO ROW OVER WORKERS RIGHTS

•  
  Ireland’s second largest trade union is to campaign for a no vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum. The position was confirmed after a weekend meeting of the Union’s executive m Dundalk, It will encourage its near 70,000 workers m the Republic of Ireland to reject the government supported treaty,

•  
  Condemning the government’s lack of action on workers rights and its seeming desire to railroad the treaty through without providing commitments on what It will mean, Unite regional Secretary Jimmy Kelly said, “Our role is to took out for the rights of our members. This government is full of empty promises and sleight of hand when it comes to dealing with the issues that matter to workers. Bertie Ahern loves to talk a good game but look at his government’s record.”

•  
  “They opposed Europe on the Agency Workers Directive which is a cornerstone of fair treatment for the lowest paid and least regarded workers in Ireland,”

•  
  They ignored the Supreme Court ruling in the Ryanair case on rights to representation, leaving workers exposed in a similar manner to that which was the case 100 years ago.”

•  
  They buried their heads over mandatory pensions, ignoring the fact that one million people are heading towards poverty in old age,”

•  
  “We support a Europe that will make a difference to workers rights, The next phase of European integration has to deliver that difference, and has to force the Irish government into less talk and more action. Rejecting this treaty will make it crystal! clear that we need to see concrete evidence on workers rights, not just empty promises,”