2011/9: Collective agreement that sets minimum fee for self-employed workers violates anti-trust law (NL)

Agreements restricting competition are covered by the anti-trust rules under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the TFEU) unless they meet the requirement for the “social exception” rule, as formulated by the ECJ in its Albany case law. A collective agreement that fixes minimum fees for self-employed workers does not meet these requirements.

2011/9: Collective agreement that sets minimum fee for self-employed workers violates anti-trust law (NL)

Agreements restricting competition are covered by the anti-trust rules under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the TFEU) unless they meet the requirement for the “social exception” rule, as formulated by the ECJ in its Albany case law. A collective agreement that fixes minimum fees for self-employed workers does not meet these requirements.

ECtHR 12 February 2008, (Guja – v – Moldova), Application no. 14277/04 and ECtHR 6 October 2011, (Vellutine and Michel – v – France), Application no. 32820/09, Fundamental rights, Whistleblowing, Unions

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is developing a clear jurisprudence in relation to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the employment context. Although this right to expression by the employee - contrary to the employer’s interests - must be balanced against a duty of loyalty to the employer, the ECtHR has afforded the employee ever greater freedom of expression. Both Guja and Vellutine offer wide application to Article 10 in the context of “whistleblowing” and labour disputes.

Guja was a whistleblowing case where a civil servant in a sensitive position disclosed letters to the media in order to draw attention to corruption at the governmental level. The ECtHR disagreed with the decision of the Moldova Supreme Court but the applicability of this decision may be limited to the unique circumstances existing in Moldova, namely the weakness of the rule of law in that country.

In Vellutine, the ECtHR consider the application of free speech in the context of a dispute between a trade union and a publically elected official. The Court had previously placed limits on the language that could be used during a labour dispute (Sanchez v Spain). However, in the context of a dispute involving an elected official greater latitude was permitted. The ECtHR disagreed with the Cours de Cassation that the use of defamatory words was not protected by Article 10.

ECtHR 12 February 2008, (Guja – v – Moldova), Application no. 14277/04 and ECtHR 6 October 2011, (Vellutine and Michel – v – France), Application no. 32820/09, Fundamental rights, Whistleblowing, Unions

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is developing a clear jurisprudence in relation to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the employment context. Although this right to expression by the employee - contrary to the employer’s interests - must be balanced against a duty of loyalty to the employer, the ECtHR has afforded the employee ever greater freedom of expression. Both Guja and Vellutine offer wide application to Article 10 in the context of “whistleblowing” and labour disputes.

Guja was a whistleblowing case where a civil servant in a sensitive position disclosed letters to the media in order to draw attention to corruption at the governmental level. The ECtHR disagreed with the decision of the Moldova Supreme Court but the applicability of this decision may be limited to the unique circumstances existing in Moldova, namely the weakness of the rule of law in that country.

In Vellutine, the ECtHR consider the application of free speech in the context of a dispute between a trade union and a publically elected official. The Court had previously placed limits on the language that could be used during a labour dispute (Sanchez v Spain). However, in the context of a dispute involving an elected official greater latitude was permitted. The ECtHR disagreed with the Cours de Cassation that the use of defamatory words was not protected by Article 10.

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

2011/14: Employer may not deny bonus to employees who participate in an unlawful strike (FI)

It was deemed discriminatory and a breach of the employer’s duty to respect employees’ freedom of association for an employer to refuse to pay bonuses to employees who had participated in unlawful trade union strikes. However, this did not entitle the employees to separate compensation for discrimination.

2010/52: Fujitsu penalised for failure by parent company to apply local co-determination rules (FI)

A Finnish subsidiary should have carried out codetermination negotiations before the Dutch parent company made a decision to close down the subsidiary's production facility.

2010/52: Fujitsu penalised for failure by parent company to apply local co-determination rules (FI)

A Finnish subsidiary should have carried out codetermination negotiations before the Dutch parent company made a decision to close down the subsidiary's production facility.