"A controversial legal opinion calling for the annulment of the Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages (AMWD) was based on a “historically mistaken” reading of EU law that failed to consider established case law.
Last month, Advocate General Emiliou delivered an Opinion on a case brought by Denmark against the European Parliament and the Council of the EU which called for the annulment of the entire Directive on the grounds “it is incompatible with Article 153(5) of the treaties.”
The ETUC rejects this argument and is looking to the Court to come to a different conclusion and not follow the non-binding proposals of the Advocate General, and instead to uphold the AMWD in its entirety for the following reasons:
The Advocate General reached his conclusions by failing to attach sufficient weight or even to recognise important aspects of the international and European legal framework or relevant case law;
The AG also ignores the social objectives the EU is obliged to deliver upon under the treaties in general and under Social Policy title in particular, as well as the specificities of social directives leaving sufficient flexibility to member states and social partners to reach those objectives while implementing the AMWD;
The methodology applied by the Advocate General furthermore demonstrates several shortcomings, together with certain inconsistencies and a lack of contextualisation;
The Advocate General relied on a literal and technical interpretation of the ‘pay' exclusion which is not consistent with the Treaties, EU secondary law and, in particular, the established case law of the CJEU"

Support: Digital