Viking Line, C-438/05

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

A multinational logistics company, Pomero & Sons, is based in Germany and decides to establish a new subsidiary in Poland to reduce its operational costs. In response, the European Logistics Workers’ Union threatens to block access to Pomero & Sons’ distribution hubs across Europe. They claim that such collective action is necessary to safeguard fair wages and prevent social dumping. Pomero & Sons argues that these measures infringe its fundamental freedom of establishment under EU law, contending that the union’s proposed actions exceed what is necessary to protect workers’ interests. As the dispute escalates, both sides seek legal guidance on whether proportionality principles can justify the union’s actions.


Which of the following statements best addresses the role of proportionality in determining the lawfulness of the union’s collective action?

Introduction

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Case C-438/05, Viking Line, addresses the complex interplay between the fundamental right to collective action, afforded to trade unions, and the equally fundamental freedom of establishment, guaranteed under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This case established critical principles for determining the legality of trade union actions that may impede a company's exercise of its freedom of establishment. The judgment clarifies the conditions under which such actions can be justified and the requirements for proportionality in restricting fundamental freedoms. The ECJ's decision provides significant guidance for interpreting the scope of collective action and its potential impact on cross-border economic activities within the EU single market.

The Facts of Viking Line

Viking Line, a Finnish maritime transport company, intended to reflag one of its vessels from Finland to Estonia to take advantage of lower labor costs. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and the Finnish Seamen's Union (FSU) initiated collective action, threatening industrial action to prevent the reflagging. This action aimed to compel Viking Line to enter into collective agreements maintaining existing working conditions, effectively hindering their freedom of establishment.

The ECJ’s Ruling on Collective Action

The ECJ affirmed that collective action by trade unions constitutes an exercise of a fundamental right. However, the Court also determined that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of establishment. The Court considered that trade union actions intended to protect workers’ rights can, under certain circumstances, be legitimate, even if they restrict a company's freedom of establishment.

Justification and Proportionality

The ECJ emphasized the importance of demonstrating a genuine and legitimate interest pursued by the trade union action. In Viking Line, the Court held that safeguarding workers’ terms and conditions of employment could constitute such an interest. However, the Court also introduced the key requirement of proportionality. Any restriction on the freedom of establishment must be justified by overriding reasons of public interest and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the trade union.

Assessing the Legitimate Aim

The Court outlined specific considerations for assessing the legitimacy of a trade union’s aims. These include the nature of the collective action, the specific circumstances justifying the action, and the balance between the conflicting interests at stake. In Viking Line, the Court examined the potential impact of the reflagging on workers’ employment and concluded that the unions' concerns were not entirely unfounded, thereby acknowledging a legitimate interest.

Proportionality and its Application

The ECJ provided guidance on how to assess the proportionality of collective action. The measures taken by the trade unions must be suitable for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. The Court recognized that assessing proportionality involves complex considerations, requiring a balancing exercise between competing fundamental rights and economic freedoms. In applying this principle to Viking Line, the Court considered whether less restrictive measures could have achieved the unions' objectives.

The Impact of Viking Line on Subsequent Case Law

The Viking Line judgment has significantly influenced subsequent ECJ case law regarding the balance between fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly in the context of cross-border economic activity. Cases like Laval (C-341/05) and Rüffert (C-346/06) further refined the principles established in Viking Line, solidifying the requirement of proportionality and clarifying the circumstances under which restrictions on freedom of establishment can be justified. These cases, collectively referred to as the "Viking, Laval, and Rüffert" trilogy, have shaped the legal framework concerning collective action within the EU. They demonstrate the ECJ's commitment to balancing the competing interests of workers' rights and the free movement principles supporting the single market.

Implications for Trade Unions and Businesses

Viking Line holds significant implications for both trade unions and businesses operating within the EU. For trade unions, it highlights the importance of carefully considering the potential impact of their actions on fundamental freedoms, ensuring that any restrictions are justified and proportionate. For businesses, the judgment provides some clarity regarding the circumstances under which they can rely on the freedom of establishment to challenge collective action that may impede their cross-border operations.

Conclusion

The Viking Line judgment marks a significant development in EU law, clarifying the relationship between the fundamental right to collective action and the freedom of establishment. The ECJ’s emphasis on justification and proportionality provides a framework for analyzing the legality of trade union actions that may restrict cross-border economic activity. The judgment, along with subsequent case law, has had a lasting impact on the legal context, affecting strategies of both trade unions and businesses operating within the EU single market. The principles established in Viking Line remain key for understanding the delicate balance between protecting workers’ rights and safeguarding the free movement principles essential for the functioning of the internal market. The case strengthens the complexity of managing the interplay between these fundamental rights and freedoms in the context of an increasingly integrated European Union.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal