Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
1,353 search results

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

Summary

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

Case report

2010-10-14

Europe

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-243/09 (Günter Fuss – v – Stadt Halle), Working time

Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 precludes national rules, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer a worker compulsorily to another service on the ground that the worker has requested compliance with that provision, even if he or she suffers no specific detriment other than that resulting from the infringement of that provision.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Summary

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-243/09 (Günter Fuss – v – Stadt Halle), Working time

Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 precludes national rules, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer a worker compulsorily to another service on the ground that the worker has requested compliance with that provision, even if he or she suffers no specific detriment other than that resulting from the infringement of that provision.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Court watch

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-345/09 (J.A. van Delft et al. – v – College van Zorgverzekeringen), Social insurance

Neither Regulation 1408/71 nor Article 21 TFEU preclude national legislation under which recipients of a pension, who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled to sickness benefits in kind provided by that Member State, must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence. However, Article 21 TFEU does preclude national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Summary

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-345/09 (J.A. van Delft et al. – v – College van Zorgverzekeringen), Social insurance

Neither Regulation 1408/71 nor Article 21 TFEU preclude national legislation under which recipients of a pension, who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled to sickness benefits in kind provided by that Member State, must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence. However, Article 21 TFEU does preclude national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Court watch

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-428/09 (Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère – v – Premier Ministre), Working time

Persons employed under an educational commitment contract fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or (c) of the Directive, but the French legislation at issue fails to afford them appropriate protection and is, therefore, not compatible with the Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Summary

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-428/09 (Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère – v – Premier Ministre), Working time

Persons employed under an educational commitment contract fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or (c) of the Directive, but the French legislation at issue fails to afford them appropriate protection and is, therefore, not compatible with the Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Court watch

2010-10-01

ECJ 1 October 2010, case C-3/10 (Franco Affatato – v – Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza), Fixed-term work

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement does not preclude national legislation, such as Article 36(5) of Decree 165, prohibiting conversion of fixed-term contracts into permanent contracts, where the legal order of that Member State contains other effective measures to avoid and, as necessary, penalise the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts. It is for the national courts to assess to what extent such measures are adequate, provided they are not less favourable than those governing similar situations and that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-01