Suchergebnisse

"This book examines the potential role of European Union law in combating poverty and social exclusion in the European Union. Anti-poverty strategies have been part of the European Union agenda for decades. Most saliently, over a decade ago, the EU's Member States pledged to lift 20 million people out of poverty. In spite of this commitment, the EU did not even meet a quarter of this target, and over 113 million people still were at risk of poverty and social exclusion by the end of 2020. This book addresses the incongruence between a quite developed EU policy strategy and a well-embedded legal objective on the one hand, and the lack of direct legal action on the other. Analysing the role of social policy instruments, fundamental rights, and the constitutional framework of the European Union, it makes a detailed case for a contribution of EU law to the policy objective of combating poverty and social exclusion. Drawing on work in law, politics, social policy and economics, this book will interest scholars and policy-makers in the areas of EU law, labour and social security, human rights, political science and social and public policy"--

The highly fragmented, layered and complex regulatory policy framework of the European Union hides a wealth of resources for social Europe. This article aims at exploring the social opportunities offered in this intricate legal framework on the basis of the resource-based understanding identified in the first contribution of this Special Issue by Corti, Ferrera and Keune. Accordingly, it pinpoints and discusses several guaranteed subjective powers to obtain certain social benefits or services in each of the pre-identified tripod of power resources: normative, instrumental and enforcement power resources. The analysis contradicts, to some extent, the negligible role attributed to EU law in terms of social rights. Overall, it finds that there exist abundant power resources at the EU level. Whereas these certainly add to the plethora of resources available to reach a certain standard of living, this abundancy is paired with a heightened complexity. Consequently, it is not always clear how the power resources interact among each other. Moreover, there is a disproportionate use of the tripod. Binding normative resources are used rather marginally in comparison to instrumental and enforcement resources, which is not necessarily a consequence of the lack of competence at the EU level.

In May 2022, the CJEU delivered the judgment FN v. Universiteit Antwerpen, dealing with the interpretation of the Framework Agreements on fixed-term and part-time work in higher education. This contribution studies the Court's position on the four referred questions and provides a critical analysis of its reasoning. It finds, first and foremost, that a poor legal phrasing by the referring court and the lack of substance provided by the claimant weakened the position of the applicant and the possibility of receiving better protection from the directives. Nevertheless, the analysils also finds that the Court failed to see this case in light of important and well-established principles of EU law, particularly regarding the principle of pro rata temporis and effectiveness of EU law. It shows that this (lack of) interpretation by the Court undermines an already flawed protection of the directives and fails to shield a growing group of atypical workers from increasingly precarious labour patterns.

For the purpose of examining alternative policy scenarios that support EU social citizenship, this Working Paper examines the limitations and potential of social policy in the existing EU legal framework. It has thus the objective of delineating the contours of what we understand as the social dimension of the EU. To this end, the Working Paper is divided in two parts. The first part analyses the social competences of the Union to depict the first limit of EU social policy: the powers of the Union. The second, building on the theory of power resources presented in an earlier Working Paper of EuSocialCit on the rationale for and the nature and content of European social rights, breaks down the power resources offered by the EU. While piecing together the puzzle of social policy in the EU is no easy task, the Working Paper shows that there are diverse power resources at the EU level that empower individuals through different means. These, however, come with their own set of limitations.

Ever since the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EU seems committed to explore and expand its social dimension to deliver a decent standard of living to the European society. This new endeavour gives rise to a number of questions, not least regarding how the notion of a standard of living that is compatible with a life in dignity ought to be interpreted and what the obligations of Member States are in this quest. The aim of this contribution is precisely to shed some light on these questions. To this end, the article looks into how different (quasi)judicial bodies have interpreted fundamental rights that entitle individuals to minimum subsistence resources that are deemed to achieve a standard of living that is compatible with the right to human dignity. In particular, it analyses how the ECJ, the ECtHR and the ECSR have interpreted (minimum) living standards through different fundamental rights. It then suggests a number of 'learning points' for the ECJ to draw from the experience of the other two bodies and emphasizes the need for building solid bridges between the three.

In spite of having been an alleged priority for the EU and the Member States over the last ten years, the number of people in situations of poverty and social exclusion remains unacceptably high. As the Covid-19 crisis unfolds, the EU is left at a crossroads that will likely be determinant for its future. This contribution explores the possibility of taking the solidarity route at this crossroads by activating the social competences in the form of a Framework Directive on Minimum Income. To this end, this contribution first discusses the context of this proposal and the importance of minimum income schemes in improving the living standards of the population. From there, it explores the possibilities for legal action under the current Treaty framework. It then emphasizes the importance of choosing adequate methodologies in such an instrument when aiming to secure adequate incomes to live a life in dignity in any given Member State. It is argued that this is equally important to comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Ultimately, the EU will have to bet on its social dimension to remain true to its raison-d'être of becoming a social market economy.

Implementing fiscal consolidation measures without first considering social stabilisers has led to turn what originally was an economic recession into a social crisis too. The economic and social divergences in Europe have increased to a point where the future of the social dimension of the EU has been put into question. There is however, a provision in the Treaties that obliges the EU to take into account social issues in all its policies and activities, namely, the so-called horizontal social clause enshrined in Article 9 TFEU. The potential of this clause to mainstream the social dimension of the EU and foster balance between social and economic policies has, however, not yet been untapped. The recently launched European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), which aims at achieving a highly competitive social market economy, brings to the table a number of rights-based objectives along with a number of indicators that might shed some light over the constraints faced by the horizontal social clause. This article aims at unravelling the potential of the horizontal social clause in envisioning parity between the social and the economic and providing a social pillar to the EU. This contribution provides first a legal analysis of Article 9 TFEU and it briefly discusses the problematic behind its poor implementation. Later, the potential of the horizontal social clause is discussed in the light of the current developments in the framework of economic governance. This article also suggests a number of scenarios where social mainstreaming should be duly implemented. It suggests that Article 9 TFEU may have an important role, in particular, with regard to austerity measures when envisioning it together with the EPSR.

Anti-poverty strategies have been on the EU agenda for decades. In 2010, perhaps most saliently, Member States pledged to lift 20 million people out of poverty as part of the ten-year Europe 2020 Strategy. By the end of 2019, it became clear that this headline target was nowhere close to being achieved. In view of the disappointing results of previous EU strategies in combating poverty, a seminar was held on 5 December 2019 at the University of Antwerp to discuss future strategies for social Europe and the role of EU law in contributing to the policy objective of fighting poverty and social exclusion. This Special Issue is the result of that expert seminar. Sections 1 and 2 of this editorial place this Special Issue in context by explaining what led us to discuss the need for a more involved EU in matters of poverty and social exclusion and what has changed since then. Overall, we argue that the underwhelming results of previous EU anti-poverty strategies might point towards the need to do more, also by means of EU law. This need for further action has become as imminent as ever in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Section 3 presents an outline of the Special Issue and explains how the different contributions relate to each other.

Reaching the three targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) Action Plan is the litmus test for effective EPSR implementation. While the EPSR puts forward a prima facie balance between employment, equal opportunities and social protection, two important questions arise: a) whether and to what extent the resources available at EU level are sufficiently balanced across the different dimensions of the EPSR; and b) which implications this may have for achieving the 2030 poverty target. Analysing the three domains of the EPSR, its Action Plan and the wider EU legal framework of the principles contained in the EPSR, the paper argues that abundant EU resources are available for the areas of equality and employment, but fewer for social inclusion. The empirical evidence on poverty trends over the past decades, however, points to important successes in terms of employment and (gender) equality, but not with respect to social inclusion: a significant increase in employment and defeminisation of poverty have been accompanied by greater precarity for low-skilled men and women. Particularly striking is the rise in the risk of poverty among jobless households, linked with the weakening of the poverty reduction capacity of social protection for this group. Meeting the European social inclusion targets will thus require policies that duly focus on strengthening the framework for social inclusion and social protection.