Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Social Progress Protocol (exploratory opinion at the request of the Spanish Presidency)
Date: 2023-06-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European social policy, Protocol (EU), economic rights, human rights, job access, social development, social integration, social rights, social security








C_2023293EN.01005801.xml










18.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/58







Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Social Progress Protocol
(exploratory opinion at the request of the Spanish Presidency)
(2023/C 293/09)







Rapporteur:



María del Carmen BARRERA CHAMORRO





Co-rapporteur:



Diego DUTTO











Request from the Spanish Presidency of the Council


Letter, 8.12.2022




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




 


Exploratory opinion




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


31.5.2023




Adopted at plenary


15.6.2023




Plenary session No


579




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


134/100/7




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) points out that, according to the Treaties, achieving a ‘highly competitive social market economy’ (Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)) requires the promotion of the single market and social policy under the so-called ‘horizontal social clause’ (Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). According to the latter, each and every EU policy and action plan should be designed and implemented in a way that promotes inclusive labour markets as well as adequate social protection systems.












1.2.


The EESC agrees with the proposal in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE, May 2022) to include, with a view to advancing the social market economy (1), a call for the EU, the Member States and the social partners to, among other things, introduce measures to ensure the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR, November 2017) and its action plan (March 2021), especially the most relevant objectives for the 2030 Agenda, at EU, national and regional level, by adding a social progress protocol (SPP) to the Treaties.












1.3.


The EESC welcomes the fact that, through the SPP, the CoFoE promotes better guarantees ensuring that social rights are effectively protected in the event of conflict with economic freedoms (see measure 5, proposal 13), avoiding any backsliding with respect to those rights (measure 2, proposal 14).












1.4.


The EESC welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to open up the possibility of Treaty reform, as endorsed in the latest State of the Union address, and, in line with the European Parliament’s proposal, considers it appropriate to include the SPP among the aspects to be reformed. The EESC believes that the CoFoE conclusions provide an appropriate roadmap for implementing this reform.












1.5.


The aim of the SPP would be threefold:






(1)


to ensure that, in the event of conflict, fundamental and social rights take priority over economic freedoms and other EU policies;










(2)


to guarantee respect for the autonomy of the social partners and the proper functioning of national social dialogue and industrial relations systems; and










(3)


to ensure social progress by ensuring the promotion and protection of the highest standards of social rights, whether derived from national, European or international law, as well as preventing any backsliding or circumvention of that law.
















1.6.


The EESC considers the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU a great opportunity to push forward this proposal and urges the EU institutions, in the framework of European social dialogue, to make progress with respect to this process.












1.7.


To this end, the EESC encourages the Spanish Presidency to promote, following appropriate analysis by high-level experts, including the social partners, a Council of Social Affairs Ministers that would agree on a joint proposal and enable a specific EU summit to be held to adopt it, where appropriate. The importance of this issue calls for maximum institutional involvement across the various levels of EU competence.












1.8.


The EESC appreciates that, while the proposal from the CoFoE and the European Parliament would have to be introduced either in the form of a protocol (added to the TFEU) or in the form of a cross-cutting clause (reform of Article 9 TFEU), there are other policy instruments that could contribute to the aims of the SPP. Furthermore, the EESC considers this SPP to be essential in order to strengthen the autonomy of the social partners, thereby maintaining an inseparable link between, on the one hand, ensuring the proper functioning of the single market and economic freedoms, including fair competition between the Member States and, on the other hand, respecting and promoting collective social rights.












1.9.


The EESC is convinced that including the SPP will enable the EU to be a leader when it comes to economic growth, promoting the well-being of as many of its citizens as possible, which will also lead to the creation and development of more robust and sustainable businesses. To this end, the SPP should make it clear that economic freedoms in the single market do not mean prohibiting restrictions, but provide for equal treatment of economic operators as a means of ensuring fair competition and a level playing field in any given market.












1.10.


The EESC regrets that the EU has not yet fulfilled its obligation under the Lisbon Treaty to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as laid down in Article 6(2) TEU. This accession is key to subjecting the EU legal order to external oversight of human rights, in the same way as any legal order based on democracy and the rule of law. To this end, the EESC also recommends that the EU accede to the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter, in order to promote a harmonious coexistence between EU law and Council of Europe law in the social sphere.




2.   Background, purpose and gist of the opinion









2.1.


The EESC notes that, in line with the history and culture of the EU, as codified in its Treaties, one of the EU’s main contributions to the advancement of humanity and peace is its ‘European social model’. The latter refers to an economic paradigm according to which maximising economic performance is inextricably linked to well-being and social progress. Achieving this ‘highly competitive social market economy’ (Article 3(3) TEU), which is now constitutional in nature, is not intended as an end in itself, but rather, and above all, as an instrument of well-being for all European citizens (Articles 9 and 151 TFEU).












2.2.


The EESC also considers it necessary to draw attention to the cross-cutting nature of this close link between promoting the single market and social policy, in line with the ‘horizontal social clause’ in Article 9 TFEU. According to the latter, each and every EU policy and action plan should be designed and implemented in a way that promotes inclusive labour markets as well as adequate social protection systems.












2.3.


The social market economy is based on two distinct but complementary pillars: firstly, the enforcement of competition and, secondly, social policy measures to ensure social justice by correcting negative outcomes and strengthening social protection (2). However, the EESC also notes institutional, legal and policy constraints when it comes to ensuring this appropriate balance between the economic dimension of the EU (priority of economic freedoms, in particular freedom of competition) and the social dimension (effective guarantee of fundamental social rights and prohibition of social dumping).












2.4.


In this context, and in order to address this imbalance, the aim of the SPP would be threefold:






(1)


to ensure that, in the event of conflict, fundamental and social rights take priority over economic freedoms and other EU policies;










(2)


to guarantee respect for the autonomy of the social partners and the proper functioning of national social dialogue and industrial relations systems; and










(3)


to ensure social progress, ensuring the promotion and protection of the highest standards of social rights, whether derived from national, European or international law, as well as preventing backsliding or the circumvention of these rights.
















2.5.


Moreover, the austerity policies adopted in the EU and in the Member States via the ‘Troika’ method (also criticised by the European Parliament) (3) in order to tackle the Global Financial Crisis renewed this risk of social rights being eroded, with financial stability and economic growth being prioritised over social progress. This situation contrasts with the principle of social progress set out in the European Social Charter. This was reflected in the Council of Europe’s condemnation of several EU countries for implementing these austerity policies and laws to the detriment of social rights. In contrast, the CJEU did not find any incompatibility with the social clause.












2.6.


Cases of conflict between economic freedoms and other EU policies, on the one hand, and social rights, on the other, raise important questions concerning the risk of inconsistency between the EU legal order and EU and international human rights instruments and standards. In such situations, the Member States find themselves faced with conflicting obligations in their efforts to comply with EU law, on the one hand, and their commitments under applicable EU and international human rights instruments, on the other. The SPP seeks to resolve this dilemma by clarifying that, where there is a conflict, the economic freedoms guaranteed under the EU Treaties are not a fundamental right to counterbalance fundamental human rights, including fundamental social and labour rights. This need for a balance between economic and social interests that respects human rights in cases of conflict is essential to ensure that the principle of primacy of EU law is not applied if it would violate EU and international human rights standards.












2.7.


The conclusions and recommendations of the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE, May 2022) include, among the 49 proposals and 300 measures, that of improving the functioning of markets in order to ensure socially fairer living and working conditions, in particular for young people and vulnerable groups (proposals 13 and 14 (4)).
The EESC welcomes the fact that the CoFoE report includes, to this end, a call for the EU, the Member States and the social partners to, among other things, introduce measures to ensure the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, adopted in November 2017, and its action plan of March 2021, in particular the objectives most relevant to the 2030 Agenda, at EU, national and regional level, by adding an SPP to the Treaties. It is proposed that this include more effective safeguards to ensure that social rights are fully protected in cases where they conflict with economic freedoms (see measure 5, proposal 13), avoiding any backsliding with respect to those rights (measure 2, proposal 14).












2.8.


In view of the current and recent crises, and in order to fulfil the proposals and measures set out in the aforementioned CoFoE report, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in June 2022 calling on the European Council to initiate the process of revising the EU’s founding texts. The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposed reforms include ensuring that the European Pillar of Social Rights is fully implemented, and that social progress linked to a Social Progress Protocol is incorporated into the Treaties, without prejudice to the respective competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The EESC notes that the European Parliament also put forward similar calls for an SPP in its December 2020 resolution on a strong social Europe for just transitions.












2.9.


The EESC is drawing up this opinion following an express request from the incoming Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU (second half of 2023) for an exploratory opinion setting out its position on this SPP.




3.   European context and institutional, legal and scientific input on the value of adding a social progress protocol to the Treaties









3.1.


The EESC welcomes the willingness of the three EU institutions to focus their attention on the follow-up to the CoFoE and its proposals, in line with their respective competences under the EU Treaties. The EESC notes that active steps are being taken towards implementing the proposals of the Conference in order to improve citizens’ daily lives in various areas, including the promotion of a socially fair and environmentally sustainable competitive economy (CoFoE thematic area 9).












3.2.


The EESC also points out that the report on the final outcome of the CoFoE (November 2022 (5)) contains an updated preliminary analysis of the proposals and measures, drawn up by the General Secretariat of the Council. It is clear from this analysis that:






—


the General Secretariat of the Council understands the balance between social rights and the four economic freedoms to be already secure (e.g. Articles 9, 151 and 153 TFEU);










—


while not rejecting the desirability of exploring the possibilities already provided for within the scope of the Treaties in order to ensure the social objectives (e.g. Article 153), the Council considers it unnecessary to restructure the Treaties in order to create a new SPP;










—


the Commission has announced that it intends to propose a Council recommendation on the development of framework conditions for the social economy in the second quarter of 2023;
















3.3.


The EESC notes that the CoFoE calls for more ambitious and assertive action by the EU, the Member States and the social partners in order to improve European citizens’ well-being, in the framework of a renewed social contract, and ensure the continuous improvement of living and working conditions. To this end, the current regulatory framework allows for more committed social policies, while according to the CoFoE Final Report (6) other measures require Treaty reform.












3.4.


Similarly, giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) the same legal value as the Treaties, despite not being incorporated into them, improves the constitutional balance between social rights and economic freedoms, without the former being exceptions to the latter. Likewise, as stated in its preamble, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) reaffirms the rights derived in particular from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s Social Charter. The constitutional balance improved with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which gave the CFREU the same legal value as the Treaties. However, experience shows that, in the event of conflict, the trend persists whereby economic freedoms prevail over social rights.












3.5.


The EESC is also aware of the positive development of EU law and CJEU case-law towards the prohibition of social dumping, in order to ensure a model of economic competition that is not only free but also fair. The judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2020 (Case C-620/18) is a clear example of the need to ensure a level playing field in the exercise of economic freedoms (in the case of providing services). However, experience shows that, in the event of conflict, the trend persists whereby economic freedoms prevail over social rights.




4.   General comments









4.1.


The EESC notes that, while binding and non-binding minimum standards at European level do exist, in order to advance the implementation of the EPSR, promoting and guaranteeing a truly competitive and sustainable social market economy requires an SPP in order to reinforce the strengths of our European social market economy system, while eliminating weaknesses and adapting it to meet the challenges ahead. The EESC believes that the CoFoE conclusions provide an appropriate roadmap through which to promote it. It therefore calls on the European institutions to take the necessary steps to ensure that this CoFoE proposal is implemented.












4.2.


The EESC believes that, while this proposal from the CoFoE and the European Parliament would have to be introduced either in the form of a protocol (added to the TFEU) or in the form of a cross-cutting clause (reform of Article 9 TFEU), there are other policy instruments that could contribute to the aims of the SPP.












4.3.


Furthermore, the EESC thinks that an SPP — as a fundamental aspect of social progress — would safeguard and strengthen the autonomy of the social partners, thereby establishing a clear link between, on the one hand, ensuring the proper functioning of the single market and economic freedoms, including fair competition between the Member States and, on the other hand, respecting and promoting collective social rights. This guarantee must always be understood in accordance with the autonomy of the social partners and the proper functioning of national systems of social dialogue and industrial relations.












4.4.


The EESC considers it necessary, and not simply desirable, to guarantee, within this SPP, a principle of non-regression of social standards, as already recognised in the law of the European Social Charter and in the case-law of the European Committee of Social Rights, albeit not in EU law or by the CJEU.












4.5.


The EESC sees this protocol as a key component of a new EU economic and governance model, which should be based on going beyond GDP and building socially just (inclusive) and sustainable well-being in Europe.




5.   Specific comments









5.1.


The EESC is convinced that including the SPP will allow the EU to converge on progress as well as on economic growth, promoting the well-being of as many of its citizens as possible (preserving the European social model), which will also lead to the creation and development of more robust and sustainable businesses. To this end, the SPP would also contribute significantly to achieving the EU’s Sustainable Development Goals under the UN 2030 Agenda.












5.2.


The EESC believes that the EU should have sufficient competence to act, if necessary, to ensure the effectiveness of social progress, and in analogy with Protocol 27 on the single market and competition, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties, including Article 352 TFEU.












5.3.


The EESC recommends that the EU fulfil its obligation under the Lisbon Treaty to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU must also accede to the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter, in order to promote a harmonious coexistence between EU law and Council of Europe law in the social sphere.






Brussels, 15 June 2023.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
            





(1)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20220509RES29121/20220509RES29121.pdf

(2)  Building a social market economy in the European Union, László Andor, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

(3)  See the Resolution of 13 March 2014 on Employment and social aspects of the role and operations of the Troika (ECB, Commission and IMF) with regard to euro-area programme countries (2014/2007(INI)).

(4)  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10033-2022-ADD-1-REV-1/en/pdf

(5)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/conference-on-the-future-of-europe/

(6)  Report on the final outcome of CoFoE, see e.g. p. 53.




ANNEX
The following amendment, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 74(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 1


SOC/756 — Social Progress Protocol


Replace the whole opinion presented by the SOC section with the following text (explanation/reason at the end of the document):





Amendment




1.   Conclusions and recommendations







1.1.


The EESC notes that opinions differ among Member States and stakeholders as to whether a Treaty reform to add a Social Progress Protocol is appropriate or necessary. As indicated in the Council’s preliminary technical assessment of the report on the final outcome of the CoFoE, the balance between social rights and the four economic freedoms is secured in the Treaties. The EESC believes it is important to keep this balance in the Treaties, without creating a hierarchy between social rights and economic freedoms. Furthermore, giving precedence to fundamental social rights over internal market economic freedoms by adding the Social Progress Protocol to the Treaties aims to change the fundamental principles that the EU is founded on and also amounts to an attack on the foundation of our economy, which has brought prosperity and wellbeing to the EU and its Member States. Thus, such a protocol would risk undermining the very basis for social progress.










1.2.


Just as there are numerous limitations on economic freedoms, there can also be limits on the exercise of fundamental social rights such as the right to take collective action. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), a restriction on economic freedoms can be accepted only if it pursues a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaties and is justified by overriding reasons of public interest. Even in this case, it still needs to be suitable for achieving the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. This can be guaranteed by applying the existing principles of proportionality and subsidiarity at EU level.










1.3.


The EESC considers that the employment and social policy objectives should continue to be addressed within the current Treaties and the existing legislative and policy framework at EU and national level, while fully respecting the autonomy of the social partners; the Committee is at the disposal of the upcoming Spanish Presidency to contribute to this process.










1.4.


Rather than the EU coming up with a Social Progress Protocol which would distort the balance between economic freedoms and social rights and interfere with well-defined EU and national competences, it is important to progress towards a shared understanding of what constitutes the added value of the EU in terms of employment and social policies.










1.5.


It is essential for the EU to continue developing in a way that addresses economic and social challenges in an integrated manner. As already stated by the EESC, competitiveness and higher productivity based on skills and knowledge represent a sound recipe for maintaining the well-being of European societies. Economic growth and a well-functioning internal market are an important element for strengthening the social dimension of the EU. We need to reinforce the strengths of our European social market economy system while removing its weaknesses, and thus adapt it to face the challenges ahead (1).










1.6.


Social policy decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizens of the EU and with full respect for the competences shared between the EU, the Member States and the social partners. This is what is needed to achieve positive outcomes for citizens, workers, businesses and society as whole. Well-articulated and well-balanced policy debates on the economic and social dimensions of the EU should be secured in future. The fact that economic development in the Member States is heterogeneous should also be better accounted for in European debates on the social dimension, to allow for realistic expectations and progress in terms of European economic and social convergence. It also means that measures leading to a regression of labour and social standards might sometimes be necessary in the short term, to allow governments to avoid even worse consequences of serious economic and fiscal downturns at national level. The assessment of the need for such measures should continue to be at the discretion of the national authorities.










1.7.


For the reasons described above, the proposal to revise the Treaties in order to create a Social Progress Protocol is unacceptable and is not supported by the EESC Employers’ Group.




2.   Background, EU and national context and institutional and legal framework







2.1.


The EESC has prepared opinion SOC/756 following a request for an exploratory opinion by the upcoming Spanish Presidency of the EU Council, in order to provide responses to the questions presented in that request (2).










2.2.


The upcoming Spanish Presidency’s request refers to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) proposal for a Social Progress Protocol (3), in the context of the outcomes of the Conference on the Future of Europe (4), and the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties (5), which calls on the Council, amongst other things, ‘to adapt the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties […] in social and economic policies; to ensure the European Pillar of Social Rights is fully implemented and to incorporate social progress in Article 9 TFEU linked to a Social Progress Protocol into the Treaties’.










2.3.


The ETUC proposal (6) for a Social Progress Protocol contains four main provisions to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It establishes the principles (Article 1), the definition of social progress and its implementation (Article 2), the relation between fundamental social rights and other Union policies (Article 3) and the EU competences (Article 4) to ensure social progress.










2.4.


According to the ETUC proposal:






—


‘Nothing in the Treaties, and in particular neither economic freedoms nor internal market, competition or other Union policy measures, shall have priority over fundamental social rights and social progress as defined in Article 2 of this Protocol. In case of conflict, fundamental social rights shall take precedence.’ (Article 3)










—


‘No Union policy measure, in particular in relation to the economic freedoms, shall be interpreted in such a way as restricting or adversely affecting the exercise of fundamental social rights as recognised in the Member States, by Union law as well as by any other international instrument, in particular the ILO Conventions and the Council of Europe European Social Charter.’ (Article 3)














2.5.


The EESC notes that ETUC’s initial proposal for a Social Progress Protocol in 2008 was developed as a result of CJEU rulings in the Viking, Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg cases. It also notes that, in 2010, the European cross-industry social partners issued a report on joint work of the European social partners on those rulings, in which they agreed that economic freedoms and fundamental social rights interact within their own field of competence. They have different views on the concrete implications of this interaction and especially what this would mean in terms of setting limitations on the right to take collective action and/or the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (7).










2.6.


The EESC also draws attention to the failure of the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation COM(2012) 130 (‘Monti II’) (8) and the strong reaction this initiative provoked from national parliaments in 2012 (9): they defended national competences, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, which shows the continued validity of Article 153(5) TFEU. That article makes it clear that the EU has no competence on the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs.










2.7.


In the context described above, the EESC notes that views differ among Member States and stakeholders as to whether a Treaty reform to add a Social Progress Protocol is appropriate or necessary. This has been reflected for instance by the Danish Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard: ‘I have on numerous occasions in meetings with my European colleagues and the Commission highlighted the government’s long-term vision to introduce a social protocol. The introduction of a social protocol in the treaties requires a treaty change. The government does not think that the time is ripe for a drawn-out treaty change process, but instead we want to deliver concrete results on the challenges faced by European citizens and companies’ (10).










2.8.


The EESC points out that the issues that emerged in the context of the Viking, Laval, and Rüffert rulings in 2007-2008 were resolved through the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive in 2018. As the revised Posting of Workers Directive includes the principle of equal pay for equal work at the same location, in a situation similar to those referred to in the Viking and Laval judgments it would be legitimate to have recourse to the right of workers to take collective action to seek equal pay with local workers.










2.9.


The request to include a Social Progress Protocol was once again put forward in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe. In this respect, the EESC highlights the view, set out in the Council’s preliminary technical assessment of the CoFoE, that the balance between social rights and the four economic freedoms is already secured (e.g. Article 3 TEU, Articles 9, 151 and 153 TFEU). The EESC fully shares this view expressed in the Council’s preliminary technical assessment and does not consider it necessary to revise the Treaties in order to create a Social Progress Protocol.










2.10.


The EESC regards this opinion as an opportunity to reconfirm what is stated in Article 3(3) TEU, i.e. that the EU shall establish an internal market and it shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and, ‘a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress’.










2.11.


The proposal to incorporate the Social Progress Protocol in the Treaties would change the nature and functioning of our EU social market economy by introducing the primacy of social rights over economic freedoms. By contrast, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has followed the right approach by protecting social rights and economic freedoms as part of the same instrument of the same legal value. Giving general priority to social rights over economic freedoms would be as wrong as giving general priority to economic freedoms.










2.12.


The EESC underlines the importance of keeping the existing balance in the Treaties between social rights and economic freedoms, without creating a hierarchy between them. As stated for example in the Laval case (11), while the protection of fundamental rights is a legitimate interest which, in principle, could justify a restriction of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, such as the freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services, the exercise of the fundamental rights does not fall outside the scope of the provisions of the Treaties, and such exercise must be reconciled in accordance with the principle of proportionality
 (12).










2.13.


Giving precedence to fundamental social rights over the internal market economic freedoms by adding the Social Progress Protocol to the Treaties aims to change the fundamental principles on which the EU is founded and also amounts to an attack on the foundation of our economy, which has brought prosperity and wellbeing to the EU and its Member States. Thus, such a protocol would risk undermining the very basis for social progress. Rather than the EU starting the process with the intention of coming up with a Social Progress Protocol which would distort the balance between economic freedoms and social rights, and interfere with well-defined EU and national competences, it is important to progress towards a shared understanding of what constitutes the added value of EU in terms of employment and social policies.










2.14.


The EESC has already acknowledged that the European economic and social model is based on the shared understanding of the importance of increasing employment, social progress and productivity, as the underlying key factors for sustainable economic growth, which benefits everyone in a fair manner (13). The employment and social policy objectives should continue to be addressed within the current Treaties and the existing legislative and policy framework at EU and national level while fully respecting the autonomy of the social partners.










2.15.


It is essential for the EU to continue developing in a way that addresses economic and social challenges in an integrated way. This is what is needed to achieve positive outcomes for citizens, workers, businesses and society as whole. Well-articulated and well-balanced policy debates on the economic and social dimensions of the EU should be secured in future. The fact that economic development in the Member States is heterogeneous should also be better accounted for in European debates on the social dimension, to allow for realistic expectations and progress in terms of European economic and social convergence.










2.16.


While striving to achieve social progress, we must also admit that there are situations where measures must be taken to address economic and fiscal situations at national level in order to prevent serious distortions on the labour market and economic development in the medium term. This may in some cases lead to a regression of social rights. Although lowering level of social standards is not the main goal, national governments sometimes need to be able to make use of this instrument in order to avoid even worse consequences of economic and fiscal downturns.










2.17.


Rather than trying to solve labour market challenges across the board at European level, the EU’s primary role is to provide information, possible solutions, incentives and know-how to help Member States and social partners to design, implement and evaluate policies that really address the structural labour market challenges they face, in a way that is understood by and acceptable to their societies.










2.18.


Social policy decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizens of the Union and with full respect for the competences of the Member States and social partners. On the labour market in particular, many decisions are best taken by or as close as possible to the employer and employees concerned.










2.19.


In this respect, the recently published EU social dialogue initiative (14) is a step in the right direction, as it can pave the way to stronger social partners’ organisations where this is needed in the EU, and can create more space for social partners to negotiate autonomously at the appropriate levels in the Member States with the support of their national governments.










2.20.


Furthermore, it is important to adapt to the diverse ways in which Member States prioritise and shape social policy interventions in light of deeply rooted constitutional setups, political choices, policy approaches and cultural traditions in the Member States. That is why the subsidiarity principle, as enshrined in the Treaty, should remain at the centre of policy orientation.










2.21.


As part of this, it is essential to recognise that the EU has a different nature than international organisations such as the Council of Europe and the International Labour Organisation. Therefore, it is not a relevant benchmark to use the frameworks deriving from these international organisations as a basis for implementation in the EU. The EU should come up with policies that are well in line with its own specific nature. At the same time, as stated in Article 6(3) TEU, fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.









Reason

This text comprises an amendment which aims to set out a generally divergent view to an opinion presented by the section and is therefore to be described as a counter-opinion. It sets out the reasons why the EESC considers it unnecessary to revise the Treaties in order to create a Social Progress Protocol. Rather than the EU coming up with a Social Progress Protocol which would distort the balance between economic freedoms and social rights, and interfere with well-defined national competences, it is important to progress towards a shared understanding of what constitutes the added value of EU in terms of employment and social policies.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


101




Against:


133




Abstention:


7






(1)  EESC contribution to the Porto Social Summit, point 7.

(2)  







‘1.


What is the EESC’s assessment and position on this proposal, at a time when the current President of the European Commission has opened up the possibility of discussing reform of the treaties in the latest EU speech?










2.


Does it consider it opportune and convenient for the progress of this proposal to introduce this aspiration on the Spanish Presidency’s agenda?










3.


If so, at what competence levels would it be interesting to include it (European Summit, Council of Ministers for Social Affairs, expert level, technical level?)’






(3)  Initially proposed in 2008 and updated in 2022.

(4)  Report on the final outcome.

(5)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0244_EN.html

(6)  ETUC proposal for a Social Progress Protocol, updated in 2022.

(7)  Report on joint work of the European social partners on the ECJ rulings in the Viking, Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg cases.

(8)  Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.

(9)  Twelve out of 40 national parliaments or chambers of parliaments (19 out of 54 votes allocated) considered that the content of the proposal was not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission ultimately withdrew its proposal.

(10)  At a discussion in the Danish Parliament’s EU committee.

(11)  Case C/341/05, points 91 and 93.

(12)  Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.

(13)  
            OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 2.6.

(14)  See also the EESC opinion on Strengthening social dialogue (not yet published in the OJ).