3) Horizontality and the Charter's effectiveness need to be reimagined as the Charter turns 25 💭! To me, there's promising steps that can be taken, but with a differently oriented jurisprudence.

A big thank you to Christina Hießl for this, and all other, times of working together 😉

The article has three central arguments:

1) Plamaro sidelines the Charter's indivisibility relegating (many) EU labour/social rights to a category of ineffective provisions 3️⃣. 

2) Textual formality is inappropriate for this Charter. Its legal history can be key to this view 🗝️.

The Traineeship Directive will be a crucial test case for the direction of EU youth employment regulation .

Give the WP a look 👀!

It has been one of my most exciting research projects of this past year 🌞! Thank you @karabadjieva.bsky.social and @wzwysen.bsky.social

Second, (b) I assess and critique the current EU governance infrastructure for youth employment built upon the EU Youth Guarantee.

Third, I seek to (c) transform youth employment regulation via concrete examples. Work transitions should ensure quality in access to work and in work.

In the working paper, I contextualise how (a) youth employment has been individuated, ie placing the primary responsibility for work transitions on young individuals and transforming public institutions and social partners in skill-building providers.

Very interesting all of it! I am really looking forward to the discussion 😊

Workers excluded from a transposing act. Incompatibility was rather evident since Rodriguez Mayor (long ago), yet no infringement. 30's essence could be a right to a regulatory framework for dismissal, which the CRD does establish (no comp or scope issues). I think exclusion could be about essence.

The point on essence is particularly intriguing! Plamaro denies Art 30 to carry substance as such. To a labour lawyer that must be stunning given its rich normative input and realization in EU law. I'd actually argue that Plamaro is/was/could have been about essence.

Plamaro also has an impact on the CFR's indivisibility by extending AMS to 30 CFR, which unlike 27 is phrased like Art 28, or the infamous Art 16. So it may tie into the cases subjecting social rights to lesser importance in EU law...

Plamaro is ofc a technical decision, or at least presented by the CJEU as such (no AG, 2nd Chamber). Nonetheless, it's a sensitive horizontality issue somewhat ditched in the reasoning and by who adjudicated it (ie first time not the Grand Chamber). That is intriguing to me!

This is some really interesting thoughts! Of course, it's up to each of us (influenced by some volumes) to define what is a 'landmark'. Was it only decisions like Van Gend en Loos? I'd say this classification also depends on our degrees of generalism and specialisation in (an area of) EU law.

If you have a different view, want to know more and/or discuss with us, come along!

It extends the infamous decision in AMS to Art 30 CFR (although by the 2nd Chamber only), thereby entrenching a category of CFR provisions with little to no effect.

It returns to CFR social and labour rights being second-class rights.

@eui-law.bsky.social @eui-history.bsky.social @eui-euarchives.bsky.social @eui-adgcentre.bsky.social @etuc-ces.bsky.social @etui.bsky.social

The working paper is also thought as a resource to find relevant documentation for researchers interested in EU treaty-making and social policy! 🔍🔎

More on ShaPE at tinyurl.com/33vv6pzy