(1) C-67/96 [1999] ECR I-5751: The ECJ acknowledged that collective agreements concluded in the context of collective negotiations between management and labour which aim to improve conditions of work and employment must, by virtue of their nature and purpose, be regarded as falling outside the scope of the competition provisions contained in the EC Treaty.

(2) C-112/00 Schimdberger [2003] ECR I-5659; C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609.

(3) C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959; C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659.

(4) Case 36/74 Walrave & Koch [1974] ECR I-1405; C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921; Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliege [2000] ECR I-2549; C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139 .

(5) European Trade Union Confederation, Press release on the Viking case, 11/12/2007 available at <http://www.etuc.org/a/4376>.

(6) European Trade Union Confederation, Press release on the Viking case, 11/12/2007 available at <http://www.etuc.org/a/4376>.

(7) B. Bercusson, Assessment of the Opinions of the Advocates General in Laval and Viking and Six Alternative Solutions: Advice to the ETUC, October 2007 available at <http://www.etuc.org/a/4295>.

(8) For a description of the initiatives see Weiss, M. (2004) ‘Enlargement and Industrial Relations: Building a New Social Partnership’ 20 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 5; Visser, J. (2004-2005) ‘More Holes in the Bucket: Twenty Years of European Integration and Organised Labour’ 26 Comparative Labour Law and Policy 477.

(9) ETUC’s letter attached to the submission of the ITF, Viking case, para 23-27.

(1)] Council Directive 99/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP.

(11) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP.

(12) See, for example, ‘Cassis de Dijon’ Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale v Bundesmonopolvwerwaltung fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649