ECJ 24 November 2016, case C 454/15 (Webb-Sämann), Social policy

Under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, if an employer becomes insolvent in circumstances where it previously withheld funds from an employee’s salary to pay into an occupational pension scheme – but then failed to make those payments – there is no requirement to exclude those funds from the scope of insolvency proceedings.

ECtHR 8 November 2016, application 26126/07, Diplomatic immunity in labour relations

This case concerns the jurisdictional immunity of states with respect to employment disputes and...

2017/2 Length of service is not a protected characteristic for discrimination and roles with different educational requirements are not comparable (HU)

The Curia (Hungarian Supreme Court) stated in its ruling that length of service is not a protected characteristic under discrimination law. Length of employment cannot be considered as a core feature of the individual based on which he or she would belong to a specific group, as it is a result of his or her own actions. It therefore cannot be treated as a ‘miscellaneous’ ground for the purposes of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Act. Further, length of service cannot be linked to age discrimination. The length of service of an employee is not directly connected to age, therefore treatment of an employee based on length of service with a specific organisation cannot be considered age discriminatory.A claim based on discrimination must be supported by a comparator. Employees with different educational backgrounds and jobs with different the educational requirements, are not comparable for the purposes of equal treatment law.

ECJ 1 December 2016, case C-395/15 (Daouidi), Discrimination

A ‘temporary’ inability to work may qualify as a ‘long-term’ limitation within the meaning of the ECJ’s case law on Directive 2000/78. Whether this is the case is for the national court to determine. The court may take into account that it is not clear how long the person may take to recover.

ECJ 24 November 2016, case C 454/15 (Webb-Sämann), Social policy

Under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, if an employer becomes insolvent in circumstances where it previously withheld funds from an employee’s salary to pay into an occupational pension scheme – but then failed to make those payments – there is no requirement to exclude those funds from the scope of insolvency proceedings.

Case C-494/16. Fixed-term employment

Is the granting of compensation in the amount of between 2.5 and 12 monthly payments of the last...

2016/53 Landmark decision by Austrian Supreme Court: Face veil ban for employees is lawful (AT)

The Austrian Supreme Court has ruled that the general prohibition of Muslim face veils by an employer does not constitute unlawful discrimination. In this landmark decision, Austria’s Supreme Court expresses the view that an uncovered face is a prerequisite to proper communication. Thus, termination of employment by reason of an employee’s refusal to come to work unless she can wear a face veil is not unlawful under the Austrian Equal Treatment Act. Whether this rule also applies to other religious clothing such as headscarves remains to be seen.

Case C-354/16. Part-time work and sex discrimination

1(a). Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on...

Case C-429/16. Collecive redundancy

Is Article 2 of Directive 98/59 to be interpreted as meaning that an employer employing at least...

Case C-443/16. Fixed-term employment

Must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be construed as...