Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
2,709 search results

Court watch

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-428/09 (Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère – v – Premier Ministre), Working time

Persons employed under an educational commitment contract fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or (c) of the Directive, but the French legislation at issue fails to afford them appropriate protection and is, therefore, not compatible with the Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Summary

2010-10-14

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-428/09 (Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère – v – Premier Ministre), Working time

Persons employed under an educational commitment contract fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 17(3)(b) and/or (c) of the Directive, but the French legislation at issue fails to afford them appropriate protection and is, therefore, not compatible with the Directive.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-14

Court watch

2010-10-05

ECtHR 5 October 2010, (Kopke – v – German), Application no. 420/07, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has recently considered these cases, which have a direct and indirect impact on employment law. Kopke raises issues of an employer using covert surveillance on an employee to investigate and prevent theft. Lalmahomed was a criminal case, but illuminates the strict requirements of the need for a fair procedure. Cudak is a case in which the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal was given primacy over the public international law principle of state immunity.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-10-05

Summary

2010-10-05

ECtHR 5 October 2010, (Kopke – v – German), Application no. 420/07, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has recently considered these cases, which have a direct and indirect impact on employment law. Kopke raises issues of an employer using covert surveillance on an employee to investigate and prevent theft. Lalmahomed was a criminal case, but illuminates the strict requirements of the need for a fair procedure. Cudak is a case in which the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal was given primacy over the public international law principle of state immunity.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-10-05

Court watch

2010-10-01

ECJ 1 October 2010, case C-3/10 (Franco Affatato – v – Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza), Fixed-term work

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement does not preclude national legislation, such as Article 36(5) of Decree 165, prohibiting conversion of fixed-term contracts into permanent contracts, where the legal order of that Member State contains other effective measures to avoid and, as necessary, penalise the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts. It is for the national courts to assess to what extent such measures are adequate, provided they are not less favourable than those governing similar situations and that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-01

Summary

2010-10-01

ECJ 1 October 2010, case C-3/10 (Franco Affatato – v – Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza), Fixed-term work

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement does not preclude national legislation, such as Article 36(5) of Decree 165, prohibiting conversion of fixed-term contracts into permanent contracts, where the legal order of that Member State contains other effective measures to avoid and, as necessary, penalise the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts. It is for the national courts to assess to what extent such measures are adequate, provided they are not less favourable than those governing similar situations and that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2010-10-01

Case report

2010-09-28

France

2011/28 No derogation is possible in relation to daily 11 hour rest period (FR)

The daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours set by Directive 93/104, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC1 is interpreted as prohibiting all derogations.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-09-28

Summary

2010-09-28

2011/28 No derogation is possible in relation to daily 11 hour rest period (FR)

The daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours set by Directive 93/104, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC1 is interpreted as prohibiting all derogations.

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), 2010-09-28

Court watch

2010-09-23

ECtHR 23 September 2010 (Obst – v – Germany) Application no. 425/03, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently considered these two cases about the dismissal of an employee from a religious organisation. The issue was whether these dismissals were compatible with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights” or ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Although both cases involved Church bodies, the rulings have wider implications for all ideological employments, including the scope of Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC. This provision allows Member States to maintain or adopt legislation “pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos”.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-09-23

Summary

2010-09-23

ECtHR 23 September 2010 (Obst – v – Germany) Application no. 425/03, Fundamental rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently considered these two cases about the dismissal of an employee from a religious organisation. The issue was whether these dismissals were compatible with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights” or ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Although both cases involved Church bodies, the rulings have wider implications for all ideological employments, including the scope of Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC. This provision allows Member States to maintain or adopt legislation “pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos”.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2010-09-23