Welcome to the EELA EELC Updates, an online database of judgments of national courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of employment law. In addition to case law, we also bring you the occasional articles and news items. For more information, please click here.
2010/45: Employer liable for harassment because of racist graffiti? (GE)
Can an employer be held liable for discriminatory graffiti on toilet walls? Is a two month time bar for bringing a discrimination claim compatible with Directive 2000/43/EC?
ECJ 15 September 2001, case C-386/09 (Johnny Briot – v – Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA and Council of the European Union), Unfair dismissal, employees who transfer/refuse to transfer
Mr Briot was employed by a temporary employment agency, Randstad. It assigned him to work in the restaurant of the EU Council in Brussels. Although he had performed this work since 1998, his temporary contract was not extended when it expired pursuant to Belgian law on 20 December 2002. This was a mere 11 days before 1 January 2003, the date on which the Council terminated its contract with Randstad and awarded the contract for running its restaurant to a catering company, Sodexho.
2010/51: Difference in professional category (Cadre/Non-Cadre) cannot alone justify different treatment (FR)
Belonging to different professional categories cannot per se justify awarding different benefits. Any difference in treatment among employees must be based on objective reasons that the employer is able to justify.
2010/62: New challenge to German time-bar rule limiting discrimination claims (GE)
German law requires discrimination claims to be notified to the employer in writing within two months of the date the employee becomes aware of the discrimination. Last year the Federal Labour Court found this requirement to be compatible with European law and did not find it necessary to refer questions to the ECJ (see EELC 2010/45). Now a lower court has decided to ask the ECJ whether the German time-bar rule is compatible with (1) primary EU law and (2) Directive 2000/78.
2010/53: How a "secondary insolvency" procedure can protect assets from a foreign receiver (IT)
Under EU Regulation 1346/2000 it is possible to open secondary insolvency proceedings even if the establishment situated in the State where the secondary proceedings are to be opened is the only one owned by the debtor subject to the main insolvency proceedings.
2011/12: Final word on the Goodyear case: Greek employees may rely on the Collective Redundancy Directive (GR)
Until 2007, Greek courts interpreted their domestic law by implementing the Directive on Collective Redundancies in such a way that it did not apply in the event that an employer completely terminates its activities. However, following a ruling by the ECJ, the Greek Supreme Court was compelled to adopt a different approach. As a result, an employer relying on the old case law fell victim to this change in interpretation.
2011/3: TUPE potentially applies to cross-border transfers (UK)
The United Kingdom legislation on transfer of undertakings (known as “TUPE”) has the potential to apply to a transfer outside the UK’s jurisdiction – and even beyond the European Union (EU).