ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

2011/7: Discriminatory termination in probationary period can lead to claims for damages (GE)

Although the German Law on Dismissal Protection does not apply during an employee’s initial probationary period, this does not prevent an employee whose employment has been terminated during this period from bringing a claim for damages as a result of discrimination.

2011/7: Discriminatory termination in probationary period can lead to claims for damages (GE)

Although the German Law on Dismissal Protection does not apply during an employee’s initial probationary period, this does not prevent an employee whose employment has been terminated during this period from bringing a claim for damages as a result of discrimination.

2011/51 Lump-sum agreements in days ("forfait-jours") validated under strict conditions (FR)

The French Supreme Court has validated the principle of lump sum agreements in days (forfait jours)1, despite opposition from the European Committee of Social Rights.

2011/51 Lump-sum agreements in days ("forfait-jours") validated under strict conditions (FR)

The French Supreme Court has validated the principle of lump sum agreements in days (forfait jours)1, despite opposition from the European Committee of Social Rights.

2012/8: Posted workers may benefit from the application of Belgian law (BE)

The Belgian courts have jurisdiction over foreign employers who post their workers in Belgian territory. Belgian law on temporary work, temping and the lending of employees constitutes mandatory law within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Rome Convention (now Article 9 of “Rome I”) and thus applies to posted workers on Belgian territory, notwithstanding any choice of law to the contrary. If the legislation is not complied with, the employee will be deemed to be employed by the receiving company under an open-ended employment contract subject to Belgian labour law.

2012/8: Posted workers may benefit from the application of Belgian law (BE)

The Belgian courts have jurisdiction over foreign employers who post their workers in Belgian territory. Belgian law on temporary work, temping and the lending of employees constitutes mandatory law within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Rome Convention (now Article 9 of “Rome I”) and thus applies to posted workers on Belgian territory, notwithstanding any choice of law to the contrary. If the legislation is not complied with, the employee will be deemed to be employed by the receiving company under an open-ended employment contract subject to Belgian labour law.

2012/6: Parent company liable as “co-employer” for unfair dismissal (FR)

A confluence of interests, activities and management between two entities in the same group can result in a co-employment relationship. If such a co-employment relationship exists a Job Preservation Plan drawn up by only one of the entities is unlawful and each co-employer will be required to bear the consequences and pay damages to redundant employees.

2012/6: Parent company liable as “co-employer” for unfair dismissal (FR)

A confluence of interests, activities and management between two entities in the same group can result in a co-employment relationship. If such a co-employment relationship exists a Job Preservation Plan drawn up by only one of the entities is unlawful and each co-employer will be required to bear the consequences and pay damages to redundant employees.