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

Court watch

2011-07-07

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-07-07

Summary

2011-07-07

ECJ 7 July 2011, case C-310/10 (Ministerul Justitiei si Libertatilor Cetatenesti – v – Stefan Agafitei and others), Other forms of discrimination

The plaintiffs were 31 Romanian judges. They felt discriminated against because prosecutors within two branches of the Justice Department (the branch that prosecutes corruption and the branch that prosecutes terrorism) were given a salary increase, as a result of which they earn more than judges.

The reference for a primary ruling is inadmissible.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-07-07

Case report

2011-05-26

Poland

2012/47 Protection against dismissal of an employee who discloses pay discrimination (PL)

An employer may not use any labour law sanctions against an employee who discloses breaches of the principle of equal treatment in employment or pay discrimination.

Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), 2011-05-26

Summary

2011-05-26

2012/47 Protection against dismissal of an employee who discloses pay discrimination (PL)

An employer may not use any labour law sanctions against an employee who discloses breaches of the principle of equal treatment in employment or pay discrimination.

Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), 2011-05-26

Case report

2011-04-07

Poland

2013/27 No pay discrimination where comparator’s income derives from different source (PL)

A fully qualified doctor was paid a lower basic salary than a more junior doctor in the same hospital. He brought a discrimination claim based on law prohibiting pay discrimination on any grounds. His claim was rejected at first and second instance and then by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the two doctors could not be compared because the fully qualified doctor was paid out of the national health insurance scheme, whereas the more junior doctor was paid directly by the state.

Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), 2011-04-07

Summary

2011-04-07

2013/27 No pay discrimination where comparator’s income derives from different source (PL)

A fully qualified doctor was paid a lower basic salary than a more junior doctor in the same hospital. He brought a discrimination claim based on law prohibiting pay discrimination on any grounds. His claim was rejected at first and second instance and then by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the two doctors could not be compared because the fully qualified doctor was paid out of the national health insurance scheme, whereas the more junior doctor was paid directly by the state.

Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), 2011-04-07

Case report

2011-03-02

Croatia

2015/4 Burden of proof in mobbing, dignity and discrimination cases (CR)

The Supreme Court has rejected the distinction that the lower courts previously made between harassment by the employer (‘mobbing’) and violation of the employee’s dignity, for which special burden of proof rules existed until 2010. In addition, the Supreme Court held that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the grounds of his level of education.

Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia), 2011-03-02

Summary

2011-03-02

2015/4 Burden of proof in mobbing, dignity and discrimination cases (CR)

The Supreme Court has rejected the distinction that the lower courts previously made between harassment by the employer (‘mobbing’) and violation of the employee’s dignity, for which special burden of proof rules existed until 2010. In addition, the Supreme Court held that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the grounds of his level of education.

Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia), 2011-03-02

Case report

2010-12-22

Finland

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.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22

Summary

2010-12-22

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.

Supreme Court of Finland, 2010-12-22