Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,725 search results

Case report

2010-05-11

France

2010/80: Supreme Court disapplies statutory mandatory retirement (at age 60) provisions (FR)

In May 2010, the French Supreme Court ruled in favour of strict judicial control of compulsory retirement provisions, holding that national provisions of law are to be disapplied if differential treatment on grounds of age is not demonstrably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-05-11

Summary

2010-05-11

2010/80: Supreme Court disapplies statutory mandatory retirement (at age 60) provisions (FR)

In May 2010, the French Supreme Court ruled in favour of strict judicial control of compulsory retirement provisions, holding that national provisions of law are to be disapplied if differential treatment on grounds of age is not demonstrably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-05-11

Case report

2010-05-04

Netherlands

2010/69: When is a strike so ‘purely political’ that a court can prohibit it? (NL)

A collective action, such as a strike, that aims to influence government plans, but targets others (e.g. employers) is not only subject to national law, but also to European law as applied by the national courts, which much ascertain whether the collective action is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal Amsterdam), 2010-05-04

Summary

2010-05-04

2010/69: When is a strike so ‘purely political’ that a court can prohibit it? (NL)

A collective action, such as a strike, that aims to influence government plans, but targets others (e.g. employers) is not only subject to national law, but also to European law as applied by the national courts, which much ascertain whether the collective action is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal Amsterdam), 2010-05-04

Case report

2010-04-27

United Kingdom

2010/59: Degree requirement was not indirect age discrimination (UK)

An employer required an employee to possess a law degree in order to progress to the highest threshold of a career structure. The Court of Appeal ruled that this did not put those who were too close to retirement to obtain a degree at a ‘particular disadvantage’ for the purposes of an indirect age discrimination claim under UK legislation.

Court of Appeal, 2010-04-27

Summary

2010-04-27

2010/59: Degree requirement was not indirect age discrimination (UK)

An employer required an employee to possess a law degree in order to progress to the highest threshold of a career structure. The Court of Appeal ruled that this did not put those who were too close to retirement to obtain a degree at a ‘particular disadvantage’ for the purposes of an indirect age discrimination claim under UK legislation.

Court of Appeal, 2010-04-27

Case report

2010-04-27

Netherlands

2010/48: Bonus scheme pro-rated bonus for periods of pregnancy-related inactivity not discriminatory (NL)

A bonus scheme that prorates the bonus for periods of inactivity, even where such periods are caused by maternity leave or by pregnancy-related sickness, is not discriminatory.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-04-27

Summary

2010-04-27

2010/48: Bonus scheme pro-rated bonus for periods of pregnancy-related inactivity not discriminatory (NL)

A bonus scheme that prorates the bonus for periods of inactivity, even where such periods are caused by maternity leave or by pregnancy-related sickness, is not discriminatory.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-04-27

Case report

2010-04-27

Netherlands

2010/66: Employer may ‘level down’ discriminatory benefits (NL)

An employer may refuse to apply a provision in a collective labour agreement granting employees aged 50 and over additional paid annual leave.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-04-27

Summary

2010-04-27

2010/66: Employer may ‘level down’ discriminatory benefits (NL)

An employer may refuse to apply a provision in a collective labour agreement granting employees aged 50 and over additional paid annual leave.

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden), 2010-04-27