Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
1,361 search results

Summary

2010-12-22

ECJ 22 December 2010, cases C-444/09 and C-459/09 (Gavieiro), Fixed-term work

Interim civil servants fall within the scope of Directive 1999/70, which covers length-of-service increments. The lack of a reference to the Directive in domestic law does not preclude that law from constituting a measure of transposition. Clause 4 of the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to rely on it in the period from the transposition deadline, with retroactive effect.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-12-22

Court watch

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Summary

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Court watch

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, case C-356/09 (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – v – Christine Kleist), Gender discrimination

Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules that permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women sooner than by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Summary

2010-11-18

ECJ 18 November 2010, case C-356/09 (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – v – Christine Kleist), Gender discrimination

Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules that permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women sooner than by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-18

Court watch

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-20/10 (Vino Damiano – v – Poste Italiane SpA), Fixed-term work

Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement does not preclude a national measure such as Paragraph 2(1bis).

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-11

Summary

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-20/10 (Vino Damiano – v – Poste Italiane SpA), Fixed-term work

Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement does not preclude a national measure such as Paragraph 2(1bis).

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-11

Court watch

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-232/09 (Dita Danosa – v – LKB Lizings SIA), Gender discrimination

Even if Ms Danosa is not a “pregnant worker” within the meaning of Directive 92/85, if her removal as a Board member was on account of her pregnancy (bearing in mind the reversal of the burden of proof), that removal would be contrary to Directive 76/207. In as much as Latvian law allows such a removal, it is not in line with EU law (§ 74).

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-11

Summary

2010-11-11

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-232/09 (Dita Danosa – v – LKB Lizings SIA), Gender discrimination

Even if Ms Danosa is not a “pregnant worker” within the meaning of Directive 92/85, if her removal as a Board member was on account of her pregnancy (bearing in mind the reversal of the burden of proof), that removal would be contrary to Directive 76/207. In as much as Latvian law allows such a removal, it is not in line with EU law (§ 74).

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-11-11

Court watch

2010-10-21

ECJ 21 October 2010, case C-227/09 (Antonino Accardo and others – v – Comune di Torino), Working time

The fact that a profession is not listed in Article 17(2) of the Directive does not mean that it may not be covered by the derogation provided in Article 17(3). In circumstances such as those in the case of Mr Accardo, the optional derogations provided in Article 17 of the Directive cannot be relied on against Accardo at all. They cannot be interpreted as permitting or precluding the application of collective agreements such as the one in question, since whether such collective agreements apply is a matter for domestic law.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-21