Abstract

The recent debt crisis in Europe has resulted in a significant number of structural reforms implemented in EU Member States across various fields, including the labour market, either in the context of the bailout mechanisms or the EU Economic Governance framework. This development has provoked fundamental rights concerns and has consequently given rise to litigation strategies that put austerity reforms under the test of legality before supranational and national competent bodies and courts. However, the jurisprudence that has developed in that regard seems incoherent and shows real differences in approach. This study analyses the paths of judicial reasoning that supranational and Greek bodies have adopted in fundamental rights cases challenging austerity-based labour market reforms implemented in Greece during the European Debt Crisis. It concludes that different paths of reasoning have been adopted, which could even be regarded as conflicting at several instances. They are thus reflecting the well-known particularities and discrepancies of fundamental rights protection in Europe as well as the conflicting relationship of social rights with economic and fiscal considerations imposed by austerity in times of crisis and beyond. Austerity, Greece, labour market reforms, fundamental rights, European Debt Crisis, social rights, labour law, ECHR, European Social Charter, Court of Justice of the European Union

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call