Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,694 search results

Summary

2009-10-15

2010/36: Workers' rights and free movement of people (IR)

The Irish High Court holds that the Europe Agreement does not require existing Member States to open their labour markets to Romanian workers or to dictate the residence entitlements or conditions applied under national law to Romanian workers in their territories.

The High Court , 2009-10-15

Case report

2009-09-28

Belgium

2010/38: EWC representative protected despite losing membership of domestic works council (BE)

The dismissal protection of an EWC employee representative does not end upon ceasing to be a member of the domestic works council.

Labour Court of Antwerp, 2009-09-28

Summary

2009-09-28

2010/38: EWC representative protected despite losing membership of domestic works council (BE)

The dismissal protection of an EWC employee representative does not end upon ceasing to be a member of the domestic works council.

Labour Court of Antwerp, 2009-09-28

Case report

2009-09-24

Germany

2010/45: Employer liable for harassment because of racist graffiti? (GE)

Can an employer be held liable for discriminatory graffiti on toilet walls? Is a two month time bar for bringing a discrimination claim compatible with Directive 2000/43/EC?

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2009-09-24

Summary

2009-09-24

2010/45: Employer liable for harassment because of racist graffiti? (GE)

Can an employer be held liable for discriminatory graffiti on toilet walls? Is a two month time bar for bringing a discrimination claim compatible with Directive 2000/43/EC?

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), 2009-09-24

Court watch

2009-09-15

ECJ 15 September 2001, case C-386/09 (Johnny Briot – v – Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA and Council of the European Union), Unfair dismissal, employees who transfer/refuse to transfer

Mr Briot was employed by a temporary employment agency, Randstad. It assigned him to work in the restaurant of the EU Council in Brussels. Although he had performed this work since 1998, his temporary contract was not extended when it expired pursuant to Belgian law on 20 December 2002. This was a mere 11 days before 1 January 2003, the date on which the Council terminated its contract with Randstad and awarded the contract for running its restaurant to a catering company, Sodexho.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2009-09-15

Summary

2009-09-15

ECJ 15 September 2001, case C-386/09 (Johnny Briot – v – Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA and Council of the European Union), Unfair dismissal, employees who transfer/refuse to transfer

Mr Briot was employed by a temporary employment agency, Randstad. It assigned him to work in the restaurant of the EU Council in Brussels. Although he had performed this work since 1998, his temporary contract was not extended when it expired pursuant to Belgian law on 20 December 2002. This was a mere 11 days before 1 January 2003, the date on which the Council terminated its contract with Randstad and awarded the contract for running its restaurant to a catering company, Sodexho.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2009-09-15

Case report

2009-07-01

France

2010/51: Difference in professional category (Cadre/Non-Cadre) cannot alone justify different treatment (FR)

Belonging to different professional categories cannot per se justify awarding different benefits. Any difference in treatment among employees must be based on objective reasons that the employer is able to justify.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2009-07-01

Summary

2009-07-01

2010/51: Difference in professional category (Cadre/Non-Cadre) cannot alone justify different treatment (FR)

Belonging to different professional categories cannot per se justify awarding different benefits. Any difference in treatment among employees must be based on objective reasons that the employer is able to justify.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2009-07-01

Case report

2009-06-03

Germany

2010/62: New challenge to German time-bar rule limiting discrimination claims (GE)

German law requires discrimination claims to be notified to the employer in writing within two months of the date the employee becomes aware of the discrimination. Last year the Federal Labour Court found this requirement to be compatible with European law and did not find it necessary to refer questions to the ECJ (see EELC 2010/45). Now a lower court has decided to ask the ECJ whether the German time-bar rule is compatible with (1) primary EU law and (2) Directive 2000/78.

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg, 2009-06-03