Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,693 search results

Case report

2009-11-30

Greece

2011/37 Cypriot court applies Acquired Rights Directive (CY)

One company closed down a restaurant in November and another company reopened the restaurant in April, using the same name and the same equipment, offering identical services and being owned partly by the same owner. The court found this to constitute the transfer of an undertaking.

Employment Tribunal of Larnaka, 2009-11-30

Summary

2009-11-30

2011/37 Cypriot court applies Acquired Rights Directive (CY)

One company closed down a restaurant in November and another company reopened the restaurant in April, using the same name and the same equipment, offering identical services and being owned partly by the same owner. The court found this to constitute the transfer of an undertaking.

Employment Tribunal of Larnaka, 2009-11-30

Case report

2009-11-18

France

2010/42: Directive 2001/23/EC not transposed fully: no horizontal effect (FR)

Article 7 (6) of Directive 2001/23/EC requires employers lacking staff representation within their organisation to inform their employees of an impending transfer of undertaking. Given that this provision has not been transposed into French domestic law, an employer who has failed to inform the relevant employees cannot be held liable for damages resulting from such failure.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2009-11-18

Summary

2009-11-18

2010/42: Directive 2001/23/EC not transposed fully: no horizontal effect (FR)

Article 7 (6) of Directive 2001/23/EC requires employers lacking staff representation within their organisation to inform their employees of an impending transfer of undertaking. Given that this provision has not been transposed into French domestic law, an employer who has failed to inform the relevant employees cannot be held liable for damages resulting from such failure.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2009-11-18

Case report

2009-11-13

Ireland

2010/47: Employer ordered to give employee who was discriminated against meaningful work and to pay her compensation equalling three years' salary (IR)

An employee alleged that she was given a "dummy" job by her employer, and that less experienced and less qualified younger men were groomed to take the promotions she would have expected to obtain in the normal course of her career. This claim of discrimination on the grounds of gender along with a claim of victimisation for making a complaint, contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2008 (the "EEA"), resulted in one of the highest compensation payments in recent times before the Equality Tribunal in Ireland.

The Equality Tribunal, 2009-11-13

Summary

2009-11-13

2010/47: Employer ordered to give employee who was discriminated against meaningful work and to pay her compensation equalling three years' salary (IR)

An employee alleged that she was given a "dummy" job by her employer, and that less experienced and less qualified younger men were groomed to take the promotions she would have expected to obtain in the normal course of her career. This claim of discrimination on the grounds of gender along with a claim of victimisation for making a complaint, contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2008 (the "EEA"), resulted in one of the highest compensation payments in recent times before the Equality Tribunal in Ireland.

The Equality Tribunal, 2009-11-13

Case report

2009-10-27

Belgium

2010/87: Standby periods do not qualify as (paid) “work” (BE)

During stand-by periods, when an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, only the effectively performed hours of work are to be considered working time.

Arbeidshof Brussel (Labour Court of Brussels), 2009-10-27

Summary

2009-10-27

2010/87: Standby periods do not qualify as (paid) “work” (BE)

During stand-by periods, when an employee is simply asked to be available by phone in order to answer urgent calls, only the effectively performed hours of work are to be considered working time.

Arbeidshof Brussel (Labour Court of Brussels), 2009-10-27

Case report

2009-10-15

Ireland

2010/36: Workers' rights and free movement of people (IR)

The Irish High Court holds that the Europe Agreement does not require existing Member States to open their labour markets to Romanian workers or to dictate the residence entitlements or conditions applied under national law to Romanian workers in their territories.

The High Court , 2009-10-15

Summary

2009-10-15

2010/36: Workers' rights and free movement of people (IR)

The Irish High Court holds that the Europe Agreement does not require existing Member States to open their labour markets to Romanian workers or to dictate the residence entitlements or conditions applied under national law to Romanian workers in their territories.

The High Court , 2009-10-15