2013/1 No special right to object to transfer (Widerspruchsrecht) for disabled employees (AT)

In February 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court had confirmed that Austrian law generally does not give employees the right to retain their employment with the transferor in the case of a business transfer. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

In this more recent case, the court held that, unlike members of a works council, disabled employees enjoying special protection against dismissal did not have a privileged right to object to being employed by the transferee.

2013/1 No special right to object to transfer (Widerspruchsrecht) for disabled employees (AT)

In February 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court had confirmed that Austrian law generally does not give employees the right to retain their employment with the transferor in the case of a business transfer. However, the court did broaden the scope of the exceptions to the rule, where employees do have a Widerspruch right.

In this more recent case, the court held that, unlike members of a works council, disabled employees enjoying special protection against dismissal did not have a privileged right to object to being employed by the transferee.

2012/16: ETO defence fails (NL)

It is not up to the parties of a (collective) agreement to determine whether a situation qualifies as an ETO reason.

2012/16: ETO defence fails (NL)

It is not up to the parties of a (collective) agreement to determine whether a situation qualifies as an ETO reason.

2012/17: Lithuanian Supreme Court interprets domestic law in line with the Acquired Rights Directive (LT)

Lithuania transposed the Acquired Rights Directive 2001/23 in 2002 without, however, providing for the automatic transfer of employment in the event an undertaking is transferred. The Labour Code merely prohibits dismissals in such an event. In this first ever case in Lithuania on the transfer of undertakings, the Supreme Court fills in the gap left open by the legislator.

2012/17: Lithuanian Supreme Court interprets domestic law in line with the Acquired Rights Directive (LT)

Lithuania transposed the Acquired Rights Directive 2001/23 in 2002 without, however, providing for the automatic transfer of employment in the event an undertaking is transferred. The Labour Code merely prohibits dismissals in such an event. In this first ever case in Lithuania on the transfer of undertakings, the Supreme Court fills in the gap left open by the legislator.

2012/45 Employee who refuses to go across to transferee loses job (GR)

Greek law has no provision entitling employees to refuse automatic transfer into the employment of the transferee in the event of a transfer of undertaking.

2012/45 Employee who refuses to go across to transferee loses job (GR)

Greek law has no provision entitling employees to refuse automatic transfer into the employment of the transferee in the event of a transfer of undertaking.

2012/14: Airline catering company is capitalintensive (NO)

In a line of recent cases before the Norwegian courts, defendants with claims of transfer of undertakings against them have stressed the need for an economic legal entity to be identified, arguing that the transfer of an undertaking cannot take place where no such entity existed pretransfer. In this case, which concerned the transfer of a contract for catering services to an airline, the Supreme Court, perhaps chose not to rule on whether an economic entity had been subject to transfer - but combined this question with the issue of retention of identity, and found no transfer had taken place.

2012/14: Airline catering company is capitalintensive (NO)

In a line of recent cases before the Norwegian courts, defendants with claims of transfer of undertakings against them have stressed the need for an economic legal entity to be identified, arguing that the transfer of an undertaking cannot take place where no such entity existed pretransfer. In this case, which concerned the transfer of a contract for catering services to an airline, the Supreme Court, perhaps chose not to rule on whether an economic entity had been subject to transfer - but combined this question with the issue of retention of identity, and found no transfer had taken place.