Conference Agenda

This paper contributes to our general knowledge about EU decision-making efficiency and capacity to reduce socio-economic inequalities by examining the negotiations of so-called “gender equality” EU Directives. The potential societal impacts of EU legislation to address gender inequalities are considerable: Over the past few years, EU Directives have been adopted to prevent and combat violence against women, improve the distribution of caring responsibilities between parents, promote companies’ gender balanced decision-making, and reinforce respect for the principle of equal pay for equal work. The adoption of such Directives is characterized by intense negotiations within the Council of the European Union, with the European Parliament as co-legislator. Gender equality policy stands out as an area of EU policy that is not dominated by economic goals but rather seeks to achieve the common good. Because the desirability of reducing inequalities between women and men is largely undisputed by member states of the EU (at least on principle), one might expect disagreements to be mainly resolved by deliberation. In the Habermasian meaning, deliberation is a mode of interaction whereby negotiators debate the merits of different policy options in the pursuit of the right course of action based on the merits of arguments. This ideal type of deliberative democracy is opposed to bargaining, through which actors primarily pursue their self-interest by trading issues and seeking compromise. This empirical paper provides insights on the conditions under which the EU as a collective can act decisively to combat gender inequalities, by asking: While negotiating EU gender equality policy, to what extent do member states resolve issues through deliberation? It consists of a comparison of four negotiation cases of recent EU gender equality Directives. The analysis uses the method of process-tracing to explain deviations from expected decision-making outcomes for the main controversial issues, based on actors’ preference and decision-making rules. The initial findings suggest that member states tend to stick to bargaining to resolve disagreements around gender equality policy, whereas the European Parliament is found to have a significant impact on the final outcomes. Crucially, sharing values and interests associated with gender equality often does not suffice to achieve policy change: Member states need to share the understanding that the EU has competence over a given issue in order to reach a reasoned consensus. This has implications for the prospects of further European integration concerning EU policies in this area.

Scholars have long debated the nature of the EU’s social model. In my paper, I will argue that the creation of decentralised agencies played a major role in its development. By the time the Union acquired legislative competences in some areas of social policy (worker's protection and non-discrimination), not less than four labour policy-related agencies had already been created: the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), the European Training Foundations (ETF) and the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA).

Even though these agencies are mainly equipped with information gathering and coordinating competences, they provided the ground for an emerging EU social model, the strengthening of which is part of the political guidelines of the current European Commission. Some see the European social model as a buzzword that is often used to advocate for the legitimacy of the Union - a Union that works not only for the economy but also for the people. In my paper, I aim to explore the accountability mechanisms that the agency-based social model comprises. For that purpose, I will have a closer look at the above-mentioned agencies (Cedefop, Eurofound, ETF and EU-OSHA) as well as the more recently created European Labour Authority (ELA) and European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

My paper will explore, by means of legal analysis, the requirements on transparency and stakeholder involvement that the legal bases of these agencies prescribe. It seeks to clarify to what extent the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ensures the enforcement of such requirements. To find out the answer to the latter question, I will conduct a keyword search in the CJEU’s database. Considering that the agencies created in the fields of labour and social policy largely lack competence to issue legally binding decisions, I will discuss the CJEU’s capacity to review coordination procedures and acts of soft law. Thereby I will point to the limitations of the Court to ensure legal accountability in the area of social policy related EU administration.

Union citizenship has, without doubt, taken a battering in recent years. The departure of an EU Member State following a popular referendum suggested, at best, a lack of understanding of its benefits and, at worst, an outright rejection of the very notion of a supranational identity. Meanwhile, populism remains on the rise within many remaining Member States. In related political rhetoric, the Court of Justice is the Union institution most frequently on the receiving end of Eurosceptic attack. In response, the Court has rowed back on many of its progressive judgments, exposing itself to strong academic criticism that it has ‘sacrificed EU citizenship’ and exacerbated inequalities faced by Union citizens resident in host Member States. This paper accepts those critiques whilst also asking whether Union citizenship was ever that progressive to begin with. Indeed, for the Court at least, citizenship’s resilience, despite recent turmoil, seems reliant on its capacity to retreat to its market origins and the restrictions on equal treatment that they continue to offer. The paper advances, nonetheless, that the apparent flexibility of a market-based citizenship is the cause rather than the cure of Union citizenship’s current woes. Grand judicial claims about the ‘fundamental status of Union citizenship’ simultaneously provide useful soundbites for Eurosceptics and mask the social inequalities that a market-based citizenship poses to EU citizens in practice. Both are exacerbated by fragmented and piecemeal judicial retreat, which necessarily impedes any sort of meaningful transformation. Only through political bravery and clarity of case-law can true progress be made.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has played a pivotal role in interpreting and shaping socio-economic rights within the European Union. Through landmark decisions, such as Grzelczyk (2001), Dano (2014), and the recent 2024 ruling against Italy (Joined Cases C-112/22 and C-223/22), the CJEU has significantly influenced member states’ social welfare policies. These rulings address critical issues such as non-discrimination, the free movement of individuals, and the balance between national sovereignty and EU-wide equality principles.

This paper explores how CJEU decisions have impacted the accessibility and inclusivity of social welfare systems, with particular attention to the implications for socio-economic inequality. A special focus is given to the Long-term Residence Directive (2003/109/EC), which guarantees equal treatment for third-country nationals residing in the EU for five years or more. By analyzing key CJEU rulings, including the 2024 case invalidating Italy’s ten-year residency requirement for social benefits, the study highlights the directive's role in promoting social inclusion and reducing disparities.

The analysis aims to demonstrate that the CJEU decisions have strengthened the rights of both EU citizens and long-term residents while also revealing persistent tensions between national and EU-level priorities. By examining these developments within a broader socio-economic context, the study seeks to uncover the role of the CJEU in advancing social justice across the European Union.