Social policy has always been regarded as the “stepchild” of European integration. The economic freedoms of EU citizens had been legally enforceable through treaty provisions already from 1958, whereas social and labor rights became legally binding only in 2009 through the Treaty of Lisbon. The last biggest challenge to Europe’s social acquis has been the Eurozone crisis and the measures introduced in response to it, which have been described as a constitutional mutation. While formally regulating economic policies, the measures adopted in the context of the financial crisis entailed detailed prescriptions that related to wage moderation, decentralization of collective bargaining, cuts in pensions and social security benefits, and reforms in public healthcare and education. Given the strong impact of those measures on the social rights of individuals, many court cases were launched at national but also supranational levels. This contribution aims at heeding the challenge faced by Europe’s social acquis and the role of courts following three steps. Firstly, it assesses the crisis-driven case-law of the CJEU with regard to social rights and economic rights. Secondly, it presents the case-law of the Greek courts related to austerity measures, especially analyzing the legal grounds and arguments on the basis of which restrictions on social rights were assessed. Thirdly, it approaches social rights adjudication as a question of legitimacy, suggesting that a procedural model of social rights adjudication would mitigate the tension between decision-making over social welfare decisions and the protection of particular social rights.