2011/34 Bulgarian law lists transfer-triggering events exhaustively (BU)

The Bulgarian Labour Code ('BLC') provides for the automatic transfer of employees to the transferee, not only upon legal transfer or merger of (a part of) an undertaking, but also upon temporary changes in the ownership of (a part of) an undertaking by virtue of a rental or lease agreement or a concession. Rental agreements, lease agreements and concessions are various legal forms of transfer of the right to use a property and these are regulated by different statutory provisions than those regulating transfers of undertakings the Bulgarian Supreme Court recently provided an interpretative decision to the effect that the Labour Code enumerates exhaustively which events lead to the automatic transfer of employees.

2011/34 Bulgarian law lists transfer-triggering events exhaustively (BU)

The Bulgarian Labour Code ('BLC') provides for the automatic transfer of employees to the transferee, not only upon legal transfer or merger of (a part of) an undertaking, but also upon temporary changes in the ownership of (a part of) an undertaking by virtue of a rental or lease agreement or a concession. Rental agreements, lease agreements and concessions are various legal forms of transfer of the right to use a property and these are regulated by different statutory provisions than those regulating transfers of undertakings the Bulgarian Supreme Court recently provided an interpretative decision to the effect that the Labour Code enumerates exhaustively which events lead to the automatic transfer of employees.

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

2014/39 Supreme Court fails to identify transfer, Constitutional Court corrects error (SK)

A state-owned company was privatised. The transaction was clearly the transfer of an undertaking. However, the Social Insurance Agency, applying social insurance legislation, did not see it that way, with the result that a former employee of the company received lower pension benefits than he would have done, had the privatisation been treated as a transfer of undertaking. The issue in three instances was whether the private company had ‘arisen’ out of the state company within the meaning of the social insurance legislation and, if not, whether there was discrimination of private company employees as compared with employees of state-owned companies. It was not until subsequent proceedings in the Constitutional Court that the issue of the transfer came up. 

2014/39 Supreme Court fails to identify transfer, Constitutional Court corrects error (SK)

A state-owned company was privatised. The transaction was clearly the transfer of an undertaking. However, the Social Insurance Agency, applying social insurance legislation, did not see it that way, with the result that a former employee of the company received lower pension benefits than he would have done, had the privatisation been treated as a transfer of undertaking. The issue in three instances was whether the private company had ‘arisen’ out of the state company within the meaning of the social insurance legislation and, if not, whether there was discrimination of private company employees as compared with employees of state-owned companies. It was not until subsequent proceedings in the Constitutional Court that the issue of the transfer came up. 

2010/73: Czech Supreme Court accepts broad “transfer” definition (CZ)

The Czech Supreme Court recently ended a long-standing controversy by ruling that any transfer of activities from one employer to another, even if it fails to qualify as a transfer of undertaking in the meaning of the Acquired Rights Directive, leads to a transfer of the relevant employees, along with all their rights and obligations, to the transferee.

2010/73: Czech Supreme Court accepts broad “transfer” definition (CZ)

The Czech Supreme Court recently ended a long-standing controversy by ruling that any transfer of activities from one employer to another, even if it fails to qualify as a transfer of undertaking in the meaning of the Acquired Rights Directive, leads to a transfer of the relevant employees, along with all their rights and obligations, to the transferee.

2010/40: Supreme Court, shunning distinction between capital and labour intensive, applies “Spijkers criteria” comprehensively (NO)

Rather than assessing an undertaking as capital-intensive or labour-intensive the Norwegian Supreme Court considers a comprehensive assessment of the "Spijkers criteria". In the present case the Supreme Court found that there had been a transfer of an undertaking even if there was no contract between the former and new supplier and no equipment or other assets were transferred

2010/40: Supreme Court, shunning distinction between capital and labour intensive, applies “Spijkers criteria” comprehensively (NO)

Rather than assessing an undertaking as capital-intensive or labour-intensive the Norwegian Supreme Court considers a comprehensive assessment of the "Spijkers criteria". In the present case the Supreme Court found that there had been a transfer of an undertaking even if there was no contract between the former and new supplier and no equipment or other assets were transferred