Does the EU Rights Charter apply to private disputes? Sometimes, sometimes not…

22 January 2014 by

European-Union-Flag_1Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouches-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT), Case C‑176/12 – read judgement

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can apply in a dispute between private parties, although it is not quite clear what its conclusion implies.

This was a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation (France), received by the CJEU in April last year.

Factual and legal background

The applicant company is involved in the introduction of measures for the prevention of crime in the city of Marseille (France). Its objective is also to promote the reintegration into working life of unemployed persons or persons with social and professional difficulty in gaining access to employment. In this connection, the AMS offers them the opportunity to gain professional training in the field of social mediation after having followed an individual career plan.

In June 2010, the departmental labour union appointed a representative of the trade union section created within the AMS.  The AMS challenged that appointment. It took the view that it had staff numbers of fewer than 11 (a fortiori fewer than 50 employees) and that, as a result, it was not required under the relevant national legislation to take measures for the representation of employees, such as the election of a staff representative.

Under French law, AMS was correct in excluding from the calculation of its staff numbers apprentices, employees with an employment-initiative contract or accompanied‑employment contract and employees with a professional training contract (‘employees with assisted contracts’). The trade union argued that the relevant French provision was in breach of Directive 2002/14/EC providing for the consultation of employees, since it excludes a specific category of employees from the calculation of the staff numbers of an undertaking. The problem for the trade union is that Directives are not “horizontally effective”, i.e.  applicable in disputes between individuals. So they argued that the case was covered by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which ‘Workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and under the conditions provided for by Union law and national laws and practices’.

In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

(1)      May the fundamental right of workers to information and consultation, recognised by Article 27 of the [Charter], and as specified in the provisions of Directive [2002/14], be invoked in a dispute between private individuals in order to assess the compliance [with European Union law] of a national measure implementing the directive?

(2)      In the affirmative, may those same provisions be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision which excludes from the calculation of staff numbers in the undertaking, in particular to determine the legal thresholds for putting into place bodies representing staff, workers with [assisted] contracts?

The CJEU’s Decision 

The CJEU took the view that Article 3(1) of Directive 2002/14 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article L. 1111-3 of the Labour Code, under which workers with assisted contracts are excluded from the calculation of staff numbers when setting up bodies representing staff. Nevertheless it is an established principle in the case-law that even a clear, precise and unconditional provision of a directive seeking to confer rights or impose obligations on individuals cannot of itself apply in proceedings exclusively between private parties (see Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 109, and Case C-555/07 Kücükdeveci [2010] ECR I‑365, paragraph 46).

On the other hand, Article 27 of the Charter, as a “fundamental right”, is “guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by European Union law” (see Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).  Consequently, since the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings was adopted to implement Directive 2002/14, Article 27 of the Charter was applicable to the case in the main proceedings.

However, that was not the end of the story. The Court went on to consider the nature and wording of the “rights” under Article 27, and concluded that the provision could not, as such, be invoked in a private dispute, in order to disapply a national provision which is not in conformity with Directive 2002/14:

That finding cannot be called into question by considering Article 27 of the Charter in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2002/14, given that, since that article by itself does not suffice to confer on individuals a right which they may invoke as such, it could not be otherwise if it is considered in conjunction with that directive. [48]

The Court concluded with the observation that a Francovich action would still be available for a party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with EU law, even where he or she cannot avail themselves of the protection of the  Charter.


That the Court found it so easy to distinguish Article 27 from the Charter right at issue in Kücükdeveci does nothing to clarify the muddied waters of the Charter’s relationship to the rest of EU law and for that matter the rights enshrined in the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human rights. The CJEU avers that

the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age at issue in  [Kücükdeveci ], laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter, is sufficient in itself to confer on individuals an individual right which they make invoke as such (para. 47).

but its arbitrary picking and choosing between one right and another renders nugatory its sweeping statement that Charter Rights should be held to be applicable ‘in all situations governed by European Union law’. If parties cannot know or predict which of those rights are going to be applicable,  how are they to frame their disputes in the national courts? And what is behind the CJEU’s thinking in this case? Are perhaps what used to be called civil and political rights, such as the right to be protected against discrimination on various grounds, to be deemed applicable in all disputes governed by EU law, even those between private parties, whereas those body of rights related to trades-union or labour laws and other forms of social and economic entitlements not sufficiently … er, ‘sufficient’ to have horizontal effect? If that is the case, then why not come out and say it?

In his interesting post on the decision Menelaos Markakis at the Oxford Human Rights Hub declares that “[t]he importance of this Grand Chamber ruling far surpasses the circumstances of this particular case.” But does it? It seems to me that it simply signals to member states that every time a litigant refers to the Charter in a matter involving EU law, the whole thing must be referred as a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. This is expensive, extravagant and unprincipled adjudication. Let’s hope the next time a Charter point is being decided, there is some rather more useful guidance is provided, on which member states courts can rely.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS 

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: