The EU legal order recognises at its highest level both fundamental social rights/freedoms and economic rights/freedoms. As is well-known, it is in the cases where these have had to be balanced against one another, that profound legal and political difficulties have appeared over the years, feeding into a more general concern about an asymmetry between social and economic values and outcomes in the European integration process. While we need to be careful not to overstate the extent of conflict, it deserves to be reiterated that there remain a number of important ‘social sore spots’ that despite sustained academic and political critique, and despite some adjustments in the Court’s approach, continue to emerge and challenge the EU’s social legitimacy. The EU’s approach towards the right to strike and bargain collectively in relation to the internal market provisions on the free provision of services and establishment, which has not only met with criticism internally but has also been considered at odds with international social rights, remains problematic in spite of the CJEU’s more recent ‘conciliatory’ case law. Moreover, relatively recent (r)evolutions in the case law as regards the freedom to conduct a business have raised important new tensions. In accordance with its brief, this article maps these frictions and, more importantly, considers how the adjudication of these rights could be conducted differently. In this regard, it argues that the most appropriate alternative approach is one not directed at procuring more ‘social’ outcomes as such, but instead one that provides a more constitutionally and democratically legitimate framework of adjudication of fundamental rights generally, and social and economic rights specifically. Indeed, while this paper therefore shares the fundamental ambition of some other thought-provoking approaches proposed recently to provide the European judiciary with an alternative framework for the balancing of social and economic rights, the proposal of this paper is different in the importance it attaches to democracy. Democracy shall be the guiding concern in the proposed framework, not only by ensuring that the extent to which these rights are enforced against the national and European legislative process remains limited to what is necessary, but also in providing the dominant telos that should inform the substantive interpretation of these rights.

中文翻译：

---

平衡欧盟法律秩序中的社会和经济基本权利

欧盟法律秩序在最高层次上承认基本的社会权利/自由和经济权利/自由。众所周知，在这些情况之间必须相互平衡的情况下，多年来出现了深刻的法律和政治困难，使人们更加普遍地关注社会和经济价值与成果之间的不对称性。在欧洲一体化进程中。尽管我们需要注意不要夸大冲突的程度，但值得重申的是，尽管学术和政治批评持续不断，尽管法院的做法有所调整，但仍有许多重要的“社会痛处”，它们继续崛起并挑战欧盟的社会合法性。欧盟关于自由提供服务和建立的内部市场规定的集体罢工和讨价还价权的做法不仅在内部受到批评，而且还被认为与国际社会权利背道而驰。尽管欧洲法院最近制定了“和解”判例法。此外，判例法在开展业务自由方面的相对较新的发展引起了重要的新紧张关系。根据其摘要，本文概述了这些摩擦，更重要的是，考虑了如何以不同方式进行这些权利的裁决。在这方面，它认为最合适的替代方法是不旨在获得更多“社会”成果，但是相反，它提供了一个总体上在宪法和民主上对基本权利尤其是社会和经济权利进行审判的合法框架。的确，尽管本文因此分享了最近提出的其他一些发人深省的方法的基本抱负，这些方法为欧洲司法机构提供了一种平衡社会经济权利的替代框架，但本文的提议在重视上却有所不同。民主。民主应是拟议框架中的指导性关切，不仅要确保针对国家和欧洲立法程序对这些权利的执行程度保持在必要范围之内，而且还应提供主要的宗旨，以便为实质性问题提供信息这些权利的解释。