ECJ 23 January 2014, case C-296/12 (European Commission - v - Kingdom of Belgium), Free movement, Pension

Contributions paid to pension funds confer a right to a reduction of Belgian income tax only if...

<p>ECJ 23 January 2014, case C-296/12 (European Commission - v - Kingdom of Belgium), Free movement, Pension</p>

Contributions paid to pension funds confer a right to a reduction of Belgian income tax only if...

2013/30 Before which court(s) must a union bring a collective claim? (RO)

Romanian law allows employees to bring a claim against their employer in the court of the employees’ place of residence or work. Until recently, some courts held that, where a trade union brings a claim on behalf of several members, it must do so in the courts where each of those members resides or works. Other courts allowed a trade union in such a situation to proceed before one single court, namely that of the union’s own registered office. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the latter doctrine.

2013/30 Before which court(s) must a union bring a collective claim? (RO)

Romanian law allows employees to bring a claim against their employer in the court of the employees’ place of residence or work. Until recently, some courts held that, where a trade union brings a claim on behalf of several members, it must do so in the courts where each of those members resides or works. Other courts allowed a trade union in such a situation to proceed before one single court, namely that of the union’s own registered office. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the latter doctrine.

2014/49 Authority to dismiss may be delegated (BU)

Until the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation reported below, contradictory court practice existed regarding the legality of dismissing an employee by a proxy of the employer, other than on disciplinary grounds.

2014/49 Authority to dismiss may be delegated (BU)

Until the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation reported below, contradictory court practice existed regarding the legality of dismissing an employee by a proxy of the employer, other than on disciplinary grounds.

2013/42 Policy of neutrality can justify headscarf prohibition (BE)

Belgian case law has to date accepted a policy of neutrality as justification for prohibiting religious symbols in the workplace. In the absence of clear rules on displaying religious signs at work, an employer commits unlawful direct discrimination on grounds of religion if it dismisses an employee based on her refusal to take off her headscarf.

2013/42 Policy of neutrality can justify headscarf prohibition (BE)

Belgian case law has to date accepted a policy of neutrality as justification for prohibiting religious symbols in the workplace. In the absence of clear rules on displaying religious signs at work, an employer commits unlawful direct discrimination on grounds of religion if it dismisses an employee based on her refusal to take off her headscarf.

2013/43 The impact of Ring on European and Austrian practice (Article)

This article reviews and comments on the recent European Court of Justice (the ‘Court’) ruling in the joined cases Ring and Skoube Werge11 (together: ‘Ring’). The Court adopted a definition of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Court also held that a reduction in working hours can be a reasonable accommodation. Has Ring brought anything new when compared with the Court’s 2006 ruling in Chacón Navas2?

2013/43 The impact of&nbsp;Ring&nbsp;on European and Austrian practice (Article)

This article reviews and comments on the recent European Court of Justice (the ‘Court’) ruling in the joined cases Ring and Skoube Werge11 (together: ‘Ring’). The Court adopted a definition of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Court also held that a reduction in working hours can be a reasonable accommodation. Has Ring brought anything new when compared with the Court’s 2006 ruling in Chacón Navas2?