ECJ 15 April 2021, Case C-875/19 P (FV/Council), Miscellaneous

FV – v – Council of the European Union, EU case

ECJ 15 April 2021, Case C-875/19 P (FV/Council), Miscellaneous

FV – v – Council of the European Union, EU case

2021/4 Budget considerations can justify indirect discrimination (UK)

If an employer has a policy which is indirectly discriminatory and the employer’s aim is no more than saving money, the Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that this cannot justify the discrimination. However, needing to balance the books can potentially be a valid justification for indirect discrimination.

Migration of UK-based European Works Councils to Ireland highlights the inadequacies of the dispute resolution process under the Irish legislation

2021/4 Budget considerations can justify indirect discrimination (UK)

If an employer has a policy which is indirectly discriminatory and the employer’s aim is no more than saving money, the Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that this cannot justify the discrimination. However, needing to balance the books can potentially be a valid justification for indirect discrimination.

ECtHR 8 April 2021, application no. 47621/13 and 5 others (Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic), Privacy, Miscellaneous

Mr. Vavřička and Others – v – the Czech Republic

ECtHR 8 April 2021, application no. 47621/13 and 5 others (Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic), Privacy, Miscellaneous

Mr. Vavřička and Others – v – the Czech Republic

2021/2 Warning strike timing (HU)

This case involved an employer who claimed that a trade union organised an unlawful warning strike. The Curia (the highest judicial authority in Hungary) found that the trade union violated its obligation to cooperate with the employer according to Act No. 7 of 1989 on Strikes. The Curia and also the Regional Courts made some clear points on the question of the timing of a warning strike. The employer must be notified of a planned strike in sufficient time, which requirement also applies in the case of warning strikes. The time can be considered as sufficient if the employer is able to fulfil its rights to protect its property, prevent damage resulting from the strike, to carry out its duties to protect life and property, and to organise work accordingly. Failing this obligation, the warning strike is unlawful. The notice shall state the date and time that such action will commence.

2021/2 Warning strike timing (HU)

This case involved an employer who claimed that a trade union organised an unlawful warning strike. The Curia (the highest judicial authority in Hungary) found that the trade union violated its obligation to cooperate with the employer according to Act No. 7 of 1989 on Strikes. The Curia and also the Regional Courts made some clear points on the question of the timing of a warning strike. The employer must be notified of a planned strike in sufficient time, which requirement also applies in the case of warning strikes. The time can be considered as sufficient if the employer is able to fulfil its rights to protect its property, prevent damage resulting from the strike, to carry out its duties to protect life and property, and to organise work accordingly. Failing this obligation, the warning strike is unlawful. The notice shall state the date and time that such action will commence.

2021/9 AGET Iraklis: another belated victory for the employer (GR)

Τhe Supreme Court of Greece has clarified that the validity of terminations is not affected by the lack of consultation with the employees’ representatives, as per Directive 2002/14/EC on a general framework for informing and consulting employees. In case of non-compliance with such obligation, alternative administrative or judicial measures can be provided by the Member States. It further reiterated that the expediency and necessity of the company’s business decision to suddenly interrupt its plant operation cannot be subject to judicial control.