2014/58 How far must legal expenses insurance companies go in covering legal fees? (NL)

Do so-called ‘UWV-proceedings’, in which an employer requests a dismissal permit in order to terminate the employment agreement by notice, qualify as administrative proceedings, as referred to in Article 4 of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance?

ECJ 18 September 2014, case C-549/13 (Bundesdruckerei GmbH - v -Stadt Dortmund), Miscellaneous, Public procurement

In May 2013, the City of Dortmund (the ‘contracting authority’ in this case) issued a...

<p>ECJ 18 September 2014, case C-549/13 (Bundesdruckerei GmbH - v -Stadt Dortmund), Miscellaneous, Public procurement</p>

In May 2013, the City of Dortmund (the ‘contracting authority’ in this case) issued a...

2014/47 Another case where terminated staff were awarded damages against their former employer’s shareholder (FR)

Liability in tort is an alternative way for redundant employees to seek damages from a parent company, even where that company has no ‘co-employment’ relationship.

2014/47 Another case where terminated staff were awarded damages against their former employer&rsquo;s shareholder (FR)

Liability in tort is an alternative way for redundant employees to seek damages from a parent company, even where that company has no ‘co-employment’ relationship.

ECJ 19 June 2014, case C-683/13 (Pharmacontinente-Saúde e Higiene S.A. and others – v – Autoridada Para As Condições do Trabalho), Miscellaneous, Data protection

These are materially identical to the facts, national proceedings and findings in the Worten...

ECJ 19 June 2014, case&nbsp;C-683/13&nbsp;(Pharmacontinente-Sa&uacute;de&nbsp;e Higiene S.A. and others &ndash; v &ndash; Autoridada Para As Condi&ccedil;&otilde;es do Trabalho), Miscellaneous, Data protection

These are materially identical to the facts, national proceedings and findings in the Worten...

2015/29 Employer may not unilaterally waive non-competition clause (PT)

The employer, having announced to the employee its decision not to comply with the non-competition clause the parties had entered into five years before, refused to abide by it when the employment contract ended. The employee brought the matter before court, demanding payment of the sum specified in the clause in return for one-year’s noncompetition. The first instance court upheld the employer’s position, but the Court of Appeal of Lisbon overturned it, in a ruling that was later confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. Both higher court decisions denied the employer the right to cancel a non-competition clause, given the employee’s legitimate expectations.

<strong>2015/29 Employer may not unilaterally waive non-competition clause (PT)</strong>

The employer, having announced to the employee its decision not to comply with the non-competition clause the parties had entered into five years before, refused to abide by it when the employment contract ended. The employee brought the matter before court, demanding payment of the sum specified in the clause in return for one-year’s noncompetition. The first instance court upheld the employer’s position, but the Court of Appeal of Lisbon overturned it, in a ruling that was later confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. Both higher court decisions denied the employer the right to cancel a non-competition clause, given the employee’s legitimate expectations.

2014/32 Severance Pay is Salary (LA)

Severance compensation paid to an employee pursuant to section 112 of the Latvian Labour Law (e.g. where an employment contract is terminated on account of a headcount reduction) is covered by the concept of “work remuneration” (hereinafter “salary”) as defined in section 59 of the Labour Law, being “any other remuneration in relation to work”. This means that wrongly paid severance compensation can only be reclaimed on the basis of section 78 of the Labour Law and not on the basis of the general provisions of civil law. According to a recent Supreme Court decision, this in turn means that an employer cannot recover severance compensation paid to an employee based on a court judgment that has been enforced despite appeal and later overturned.