Your contact for new licenses
It takes longer. The schedule for the confirmation hearings for the future Commissioners can no longer be adhered to. They were supposed to take place in the parliamentary group week of Oct. 14 and be completed on Friday of the same week. However, as Ursula von der Leyen will only present the portfolios and structure of her new Commission on Tuesday, the hearings are now scheduled for Nov. 4-12. This is according to a draft timetable that the committee chairs could decide on today and which Europe.Table has obtained.
This means that the plenary could vote on the entire Von der Leyen Commission II on Nov. 25, and the 26 new Commissioners could take up their work on Dec. 1. However, this only applies in the event that Parliament votes through all the Commissioners. What’s more, this time Commissioners who fail in the first round can go through the “re-examination”, which would take place a few days later. If a candidate fails the committees completely, re-nominations and new hearings would be due. In the event of complications, it would therefore take even longer. The new commission would then be launched in January at the earliest.
Meanwhile, dissatisfaction is growing among the Socialists. 14 nominated Commissioners and the Commission President have an EPP party membership. Only four future commissioners are comrades, plus the Slovakian Maroš Šefčovič, who is close to the Social Democrats. This does not reflect the election result. The Christian Democrats won 26 percent of the seats, the Social Democrats 19 percent. In addition, many EPP members pushed their way into the forming cabinets. Whereas it used to be customary for Christian Democrat Commissioners to give at least one cabinet post to an employee with a Socialist background, the Christian Democrats now largely kept to themselves. There is also a conspicuous number of new appointments to senior posts in the Commission with links to the EPP. It will be interesting to see how this continues.
Have a fulfilling day!
Denmark’s position is clear: “We insist that wage formation must take place in Denmark and not in the EU“, said Employment Minister Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen at the beginning of 2023, when Denmark announced that it would challenge the EU Minimum Wage Directive before the European Court of Justice. The hearing before the Grand Chamber of the ECJ is scheduled for next Tuesday, Sept. 17.
“It will be a landmark process“, says Christina Hießl, who teaches labor law at the KU Leuven. “It’s about what powers the EU has in the area of social affairs – and how far it can venture in this field in the future.” The importance of the proceedings is also demonstrated by the fact that the case is being heard by the Grand Chamber of the Court, emphasizes Swedish labor law expert Erik Sjödin from Stockholm University.
For supporters of the law, the directive is a “milestone towards a social Europe”, as the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) commented. The argumentation is that for the first time, high employee standards, the social partnership and the collective bargaining autonomy associated with it “are described as worthy of protection and capable of development”, wrote lawyer Regina Viotto for the trade union-affiliated Hans Böckler Foundation. This is a departure from the EU’s previous policy.
In Germany, the DGB is already using the directive, which must be transposed into national law by mid-November 2024, to argue for higher minimum wages and to push for new laws to strengthen collective bargaining coverage. The first effects are also being seen in other countries. According to Eurostat, the criteria proposed in the Minimum Wage Directive for determining minimum wages are actually becoming more popular there: in some of these countries, this is having a “significant impact on the sharp increases in minimum wages for 2024“.
However, the labor market and social policy in the EU is a tricky area. Several Nordic countries, of all countries, which have particularly high minimum wages and collective bargaining coverage compared to other EU countries, have categorically rejected the directive from the outset. Alongside Denmark, Sweden is also critical of the law. In the dispute over the directive, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation even partially suspended its payments to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which had campaigned for the directive. Unlike Denmark and Sweden, however, no such criticism has come from Finland.
Sweden has announced that it will intervene in the action for annulment. According to a spokesperson for the ECJ, it will be decided on the day of the hearing whether this will actually happen.
One reason for the vehemence with which the trade unions in Denmark and Sweden in particular oppose the law: They believe that the directive constitutes a new legal system of standards and values that could have far-reaching consequences. Lawyer Jens Kristiansen, for example, explains in an expert opinion for the largest Danish trade union 3F: “The directive emphasizes that no country should be obliged to introduce a statutory minimum wage. Nevertheless, as an argument for appropriate minimum wages, reference is made to Article 31(1) of the EU Charter, for example, according to which “every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her dignity”.
For Kristiansen and other critics from the North, there is a danger that the EU could then demand the introduction of minimum wages everywhere in a second step. Because once these appropriate minimum wages are set so high, it could constitute unequal treatment to withhold them from workers. Even if collective bargaining coverage is very high in Denmark and Sweden, not all employees work under a collective agreement. There is then no minimum wage for them.
A change to the directive once adopted would be possible with a qualified majority according to this argument – and could again come against the will of Denmark and Sweden. Trade unions sometimes struggle with statutory minimum wages, as they fear that this would remove the incentive to join them.
Employment law expert Hießl also emphasizes that Denmark’s action for annulment is a matter of principle: “Denmark wants to draw a clear line. They don’t want the EU to interfere here in the first place.” There was also resistance from the North with regard to the social dimension of the EU in other places. For example, when Sweden, alongside Austria, did not sign the La Hulpe Declaration on the further development of the social pillar – even though this is not legally binding.
In legal terms, the EU does indeed have very limited powers in the areas of labor market and social policy. And Denmark is complaining that the EU is exceeding these with the Minimum Wage Directive. The argument is that the law “directly interferes with the setting of wage levels in the member states” and affects the right of association.
In its action for annulment, the state relies in particular on Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article excludes “pay” and “the right of association” from the competences of the Union. Furthermore, the Minimum Wage Directive not only affects working conditions (Article 153.1b), as the EU argues, but also Article 153.1f, the “representation and collective defense of the interests of workers and employers”, argues Denmark. While laws on working conditions can be passed in the Council with a qualified majority, unanimity is required for laws that affect Article 153, 1f.
However, Hießl, like some other observers, believes that the chances of success of the lawsuit are low: “It is likely that the lawsuit will be dismissed“, she told Table.Briefings. It is true that the EU has no sovereignty to prescribe national wages. But that’s not what the directive is about, says Hießl: “It’s about the countries setting criteria for how they determine their national minimum wages. And only if they have a statutory minimum wage at all. I don’t see any legal contradiction with EU law here.”
Hießl also points out that the ECJ has not interpreted the issue of wages in its case law as being the responsibility of the federal states per se. “Laws have already been confirmed that relate in particular to equal pay measures. For example, on posted and fixed-term employees and part-time workers.” The EU’s lack of jurisdiction was also cited as an argument in these lawsuits – without success.
Swedish labor law expert Sjödin also expects Denmark to fail, at least in part: “In my opinion, the chances of the entire directive being declared null and void are rather slim.” The part on determining minimum wage criteria in particular is likely to stand up before the ECJ, says Sjödin: “I have no doubt that the court will find an explanation as to why the directive on adequate minimum wages is not an interference with wages.” The Court has already found creative solutions in the past.
Sjödin takes a different view on the second core concern of the directive. In addition to the requirement that states should set criteria for determining minimum wages, the law also deals with the promotion of collective bargaining. If a member state has less than 80 percent collective bargaining coverage, the governments there are to draw up an action plan on how they intend to strengthen the collective bargaining parties.
So far, EU legislators have argued that the directive only affects working conditions, but does not interfere with collective agreements – this would also be explicitly excluded from EU competencies. In addition, the design of any action plans to promote the collective bargaining partners is also a matter for the individual states. Nevertheless, Sjödin says: “It would be quite easy to argue that this is very much about the right of association.” He emphasizes: “This part came into the law quite late and was therefore less well legally scrutinized than the part on determining minimum wage criteria.”
The mood of European companies in China has reached a new low. This quickly became clear when listening to Jens Eskelund, President of the EU Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, as he presented the Chamber’s new position paper on Wednesday. Once a year, the Chamber addresses the Chinese government with the document in order to give advice and make the position of European companies clear. But what Eskelund had to say sounded more like a reckoning than ever.
Companies in China are at a “tipping point,” said Eskelund almost desperately. More companies are coming to the conclusion that the risks are now greater than the opportunities.
European companies are struggling with unfair subsidies for Chinese competitors, a highly politicized business environment and regulatory hurdles. These are all issues that companies have been dealing with for years, but the biggest and “central concern” is the economic slowdown in China, according to the chamber.
“It feels a bit like the Chinese economy has long Covid,” said Eskelund, summarizing the situation. After the Covid pandemic, it has not yet managed to fully get back on its feet. According to the chamber, the more than 1,700 member companies have now come to terms with the fact that the problems they are facing are no longer temporary “growing pains” of an emerging market, but permanent obstacles.
Although the Chinese leadership has recently signaled several times that consumption will finally be promoted more after persistently weak economic figures, according to the Chamber, the new program will have hardly any impact on domestic demand. It would only amount to around ¥210 (around €30) per capita.
A certain amount of promise fatigue is spreading among companies. “At the beginning of the new millennium, the Chinese government’s reform plans were considered credible,” the report states. “After more than a decade of largely unfulfilled promises, doubts about China’s willingness to reform are growing.”
And now, after another year of “mixed signals from the Chinese government,” companies are no closer to an answer to what China expects from foreign companies, Eskelund underlined the pessimistic mood: “It has become so much more difficult to make money in the Chinese market.”
The fact that consumption in China is stagnating is largely due to the crisis on the real estate market. Millions of unsold apartments stand empty, and many people have to watch as the values of their houses and apartments continue to decline. The situation on the labor market is also tense. Young people in particular are finding it difficult to find employment that matches their qualifications. Larger purchases in particular are therefore being postponed.
However, according to the head of the chamber, the economy is also failing to take off because Beijing is offering the wrong solutions. In order to create new growth drivers, the government is conjuring new high-tech industries. However, according to the chamber, this is a “huge waste.”
What is going wrong is not only visible in the market for EVs. Beijing’s targeted promotion of various key industries is leading to a massive concentration of capital and new companies that are plunging into ruinous competition. Hardly anyone can earn money this way. “Investments in production are growing faster than demand, which leads to overcapacity,” says Eskelund. It makes no sense for EU companies to take part in this ruinous game.
Despite the difficulties, the chamber emphasizes that its members do not want to retreat. However, companies have become very cautious, especially when it comes to further investments.
Nevertheless, although there are tensions between Beijing and Brussels, the Chamber believes that the risk of a full-blown trade conflict is low. The extent of the trade conflict, which mainly revolves around the export of subsidized EVs to Europe, has so far been limited and there is still room for negotiations.
It’s not common to hear Europe come up very often during American presidential debates. But that was the case on Tuesday, when foreign policy – especially in relation to Europe – was central to the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Here’s a quick rundown of the most discussed moments related to Europe from the debate:
Europe-related topics will likely continue to linger over the US presidential race. It’s unclear if there will be another debate between Trump and Harris, but if there is, maybe the moderators should ask for their thoughts on the Mario Draghi report. J. D. Capelouto
It takes longer. The schedule for the confirmation hearings for the future Commissioners can no longer be adhered to. They were supposed to take place in the parliamentary group week of Oct. 14 and be completed on Friday of the same week. However, as Ursula von der Leyen will only present the portfolios and structure of her new Commission on Tuesday, the hearings are now scheduled for Nov. 4-12. This is according to a draft timetable that the committee chairs could decide on today and which Europe.Table has obtained.
This means that the plenary could vote on the entire Von der Leyen Commission II on Nov. 25, and the 26 new Commissioners could take up their work on Dec. 1. However, this only applies in the event that Parliament votes through all the Commissioners. What’s more, this time Commissioners who fail in the first round can go through the “re-examination”, which would take place a few days later. If a candidate fails the committees completely, re-nominations and new hearings would be due. In the event of complications, it would therefore take even longer. The new commission would then be launched in January at the earliest.
Meanwhile, dissatisfaction is growing among the Socialists. 14 nominated Commissioners and the Commission President have an EPP party membership. Only four future commissioners are comrades, plus the Slovakian Maroš Šefčovič, who is close to the Social Democrats. This does not reflect the election result. The Christian Democrats won 26 percent of the seats, the Social Democrats 19 percent. In addition, many EPP members pushed their way into the forming cabinets. Whereas it used to be customary for Christian Democrat Commissioners to give at least one cabinet post to an employee with a Socialist background, the Christian Democrats now largely kept to themselves. There is also a conspicuous number of new appointments to senior posts in the Commission with links to the EPP. It will be interesting to see how this continues.
Have a fulfilling day!
Denmark’s position is clear: “We insist that wage formation must take place in Denmark and not in the EU“, said Employment Minister Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen at the beginning of 2023, when Denmark announced that it would challenge the EU Minimum Wage Directive before the European Court of Justice. The hearing before the Grand Chamber of the ECJ is scheduled for next Tuesday, Sept. 17.
“It will be a landmark process“, says Christina Hießl, who teaches labor law at the KU Leuven. “It’s about what powers the EU has in the area of social affairs – and how far it can venture in this field in the future.” The importance of the proceedings is also demonstrated by the fact that the case is being heard by the Grand Chamber of the Court, emphasizes Swedish labor law expert Erik Sjödin from Stockholm University.
For supporters of the law, the directive is a “milestone towards a social Europe”, as the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) commented. The argumentation is that for the first time, high employee standards, the social partnership and the collective bargaining autonomy associated with it “are described as worthy of protection and capable of development”, wrote lawyer Regina Viotto for the trade union-affiliated Hans Böckler Foundation. This is a departure from the EU’s previous policy.
In Germany, the DGB is already using the directive, which must be transposed into national law by mid-November 2024, to argue for higher minimum wages and to push for new laws to strengthen collective bargaining coverage. The first effects are also being seen in other countries. According to Eurostat, the criteria proposed in the Minimum Wage Directive for determining minimum wages are actually becoming more popular there: in some of these countries, this is having a “significant impact on the sharp increases in minimum wages for 2024“.
However, the labor market and social policy in the EU is a tricky area. Several Nordic countries, of all countries, which have particularly high minimum wages and collective bargaining coverage compared to other EU countries, have categorically rejected the directive from the outset. Alongside Denmark, Sweden is also critical of the law. In the dispute over the directive, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation even partially suspended its payments to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which had campaigned for the directive. Unlike Denmark and Sweden, however, no such criticism has come from Finland.
Sweden has announced that it will intervene in the action for annulment. According to a spokesperson for the ECJ, it will be decided on the day of the hearing whether this will actually happen.
One reason for the vehemence with which the trade unions in Denmark and Sweden in particular oppose the law: They believe that the directive constitutes a new legal system of standards and values that could have far-reaching consequences. Lawyer Jens Kristiansen, for example, explains in an expert opinion for the largest Danish trade union 3F: “The directive emphasizes that no country should be obliged to introduce a statutory minimum wage. Nevertheless, as an argument for appropriate minimum wages, reference is made to Article 31(1) of the EU Charter, for example, according to which “every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her dignity”.
For Kristiansen and other critics from the North, there is a danger that the EU could then demand the introduction of minimum wages everywhere in a second step. Because once these appropriate minimum wages are set so high, it could constitute unequal treatment to withhold them from workers. Even if collective bargaining coverage is very high in Denmark and Sweden, not all employees work under a collective agreement. There is then no minimum wage for them.
A change to the directive once adopted would be possible with a qualified majority according to this argument – and could again come against the will of Denmark and Sweden. Trade unions sometimes struggle with statutory minimum wages, as they fear that this would remove the incentive to join them.
Employment law expert Hießl also emphasizes that Denmark’s action for annulment is a matter of principle: “Denmark wants to draw a clear line. They don’t want the EU to interfere here in the first place.” There was also resistance from the North with regard to the social dimension of the EU in other places. For example, when Sweden, alongside Austria, did not sign the La Hulpe Declaration on the further development of the social pillar – even though this is not legally binding.
In legal terms, the EU does indeed have very limited powers in the areas of labor market and social policy. And Denmark is complaining that the EU is exceeding these with the Minimum Wage Directive. The argument is that the law “directly interferes with the setting of wage levels in the member states” and affects the right of association.
In its action for annulment, the state relies in particular on Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article excludes “pay” and “the right of association” from the competences of the Union. Furthermore, the Minimum Wage Directive not only affects working conditions (Article 153.1b), as the EU argues, but also Article 153.1f, the “representation and collective defense of the interests of workers and employers”, argues Denmark. While laws on working conditions can be passed in the Council with a qualified majority, unanimity is required for laws that affect Article 153, 1f.
However, Hießl, like some other observers, believes that the chances of success of the lawsuit are low: “It is likely that the lawsuit will be dismissed“, she told Table.Briefings. It is true that the EU has no sovereignty to prescribe national wages. But that’s not what the directive is about, says Hießl: “It’s about the countries setting criteria for how they determine their national minimum wages. And only if they have a statutory minimum wage at all. I don’t see any legal contradiction with EU law here.”
Hießl also points out that the ECJ has not interpreted the issue of wages in its case law as being the responsibility of the federal states per se. “Laws have already been confirmed that relate in particular to equal pay measures. For example, on posted and fixed-term employees and part-time workers.” The EU’s lack of jurisdiction was also cited as an argument in these lawsuits – without success.
Swedish labor law expert Sjödin also expects Denmark to fail, at least in part: “In my opinion, the chances of the entire directive being declared null and void are rather slim.” The part on determining minimum wage criteria in particular is likely to stand up before the ECJ, says Sjödin: “I have no doubt that the court will find an explanation as to why the directive on adequate minimum wages is not an interference with wages.” The Court has already found creative solutions in the past.
Sjödin takes a different view on the second core concern of the directive. In addition to the requirement that states should set criteria for determining minimum wages, the law also deals with the promotion of collective bargaining. If a member state has less than 80 percent collective bargaining coverage, the governments there are to draw up an action plan on how they intend to strengthen the collective bargaining parties.
So far, EU legislators have argued that the directive only affects working conditions, but does not interfere with collective agreements – this would also be explicitly excluded from EU competencies. In addition, the design of any action plans to promote the collective bargaining partners is also a matter for the individual states. Nevertheless, Sjödin says: “It would be quite easy to argue that this is very much about the right of association.” He emphasizes: “This part came into the law quite late and was therefore less well legally scrutinized than the part on determining minimum wage criteria.”
The mood of European companies in China has reached a new low. This quickly became clear when listening to Jens Eskelund, President of the EU Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, as he presented the Chamber’s new position paper on Wednesday. Once a year, the Chamber addresses the Chinese government with the document in order to give advice and make the position of European companies clear. But what Eskelund had to say sounded more like a reckoning than ever.
Companies in China are at a “tipping point,” said Eskelund almost desperately. More companies are coming to the conclusion that the risks are now greater than the opportunities.
European companies are struggling with unfair subsidies for Chinese competitors, a highly politicized business environment and regulatory hurdles. These are all issues that companies have been dealing with for years, but the biggest and “central concern” is the economic slowdown in China, according to the chamber.
“It feels a bit like the Chinese economy has long Covid,” said Eskelund, summarizing the situation. After the Covid pandemic, it has not yet managed to fully get back on its feet. According to the chamber, the more than 1,700 member companies have now come to terms with the fact that the problems they are facing are no longer temporary “growing pains” of an emerging market, but permanent obstacles.
Although the Chinese leadership has recently signaled several times that consumption will finally be promoted more after persistently weak economic figures, according to the Chamber, the new program will have hardly any impact on domestic demand. It would only amount to around ¥210 (around €30) per capita.
A certain amount of promise fatigue is spreading among companies. “At the beginning of the new millennium, the Chinese government’s reform plans were considered credible,” the report states. “After more than a decade of largely unfulfilled promises, doubts about China’s willingness to reform are growing.”
And now, after another year of “mixed signals from the Chinese government,” companies are no closer to an answer to what China expects from foreign companies, Eskelund underlined the pessimistic mood: “It has become so much more difficult to make money in the Chinese market.”
The fact that consumption in China is stagnating is largely due to the crisis on the real estate market. Millions of unsold apartments stand empty, and many people have to watch as the values of their houses and apartments continue to decline. The situation on the labor market is also tense. Young people in particular are finding it difficult to find employment that matches their qualifications. Larger purchases in particular are therefore being postponed.
However, according to the head of the chamber, the economy is also failing to take off because Beijing is offering the wrong solutions. In order to create new growth drivers, the government is conjuring new high-tech industries. However, according to the chamber, this is a “huge waste.”
What is going wrong is not only visible in the market for EVs. Beijing’s targeted promotion of various key industries is leading to a massive concentration of capital and new companies that are plunging into ruinous competition. Hardly anyone can earn money this way. “Investments in production are growing faster than demand, which leads to overcapacity,” says Eskelund. It makes no sense for EU companies to take part in this ruinous game.
Despite the difficulties, the chamber emphasizes that its members do not want to retreat. However, companies have become very cautious, especially when it comes to further investments.
Nevertheless, although there are tensions between Beijing and Brussels, the Chamber believes that the risk of a full-blown trade conflict is low. The extent of the trade conflict, which mainly revolves around the export of subsidized EVs to Europe, has so far been limited and there is still room for negotiations.
It’s not common to hear Europe come up very often during American presidential debates. But that was the case on Tuesday, when foreign policy – especially in relation to Europe – was central to the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Here’s a quick rundown of the most discussed moments related to Europe from the debate:
Europe-related topics will likely continue to linger over the US presidential race. It’s unclear if there will be another debate between Trump and Harris, but if there is, maybe the moderators should ask for their thoughts on the Mario Draghi report. J. D. Capelouto