Einde inhoudsopgave
Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/3.3.4.2
3.3.4.2 A second ground for liability: §42(1) Swedish Co-Determination Act
mr. I.V. Aronstein, datum 01-09-2019
- Datum
01-09-2019
- Auteur
mr. I.V. Aronstein
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS141503:1
- Vakgebied(en)
EU-recht / Algemeen
Burgerlijk procesrecht / Algemeen
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
CJ 18 December 2007, Case C-341/05 (Laval), paras. 112-120. See §3.3.2.3.
The Arbetsdomstolen refers to CJ 9 March 1978, Case 106/77 (Simmenthal II). CJ 7 September 2006, Case C-81/05 (Cordero Alonso). CJ 19 June 1990, Case C-213/89 (Factortame I). Translated judgment Arbetsdomstolen, p. 258. Other substantive compatibility reviews with a similar effect can be found in the cases of for example Mangold and Kücükdeveci. See Chapter 4. Adlercreutz & Nyström 2015, no. 693.
Adlercreutz & Nyström 2015, no. 693. Cf. the case law in Chapter 4. This is exactly the same as what the national court does in Kücükdeveci: another provision ‘revives’ or better: ‘remains unlimited in its application’. Cf. Bernitz & Reich 2011, pp. 607 and 616. Schiek2006, p. 149 in relation to what might have happened in the national follow-up case after the Court’s decision in Mangold. See also Bauer & Von Medem 2010, p. 449.
Translated judgment Arbetsdomstolen, p. 258.
115. As a result of the compatibility review of §42(3) Co-Determination Act against Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, carried out by the Court of Justice1, §42(3) Co-Determination Act has to be disapplied.2 As “a natural consequence” the main rule stipulated in §42(1) Co-Determination Act applies.3 As indicated above, this paragraph concerns the prohibition to arrange or to support in whichever way unlawful collective actions. The Arbetsdomstolen concludes that all the collective actions taken by the trade unions are in conflict with §42(1) Co-Determination Act. Subsequently, the liability for damages can be based directly on the Co-Determination Act.4