Omslag_eelc_2016_01-1_original_large
Rss

European Employment Law Cases

About this journal  
Issue 3, 2019 Expand all abstracts

    In a recent judgment, the Danish Supreme Court has established that it does not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act when a disabled employee is dismissed. The employee had a publicly funded reduced-hours job, but reached the statutory retirement age for which reason the public funding lapsed, and that was the reason for the dismissal.


Christian K. Clasen
Christian K. Clasen is a partner at Norrbom Vinding, Copenhagen.
Case Reports

2019/26 List of discrimination criteria (PL)

Keywords Age discrimination
Authors Marcin Wujczyk
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Polish Supreme Court has held that a criterion of discrimination may also be a relationship of a social or familial nature that exists in the workplace and whose existence or absence on the part of the employee results in different treatment by the employer.


Marcin Wujczyk
Marcin Wujczyk is an attorney at law at Wardyński & Partners, Poland (https://www.wardynski.com.pl).
Case Reports

2019/27 No additional public holiday pay for working on Good Friday – Discrimination based on religion? (AT)

Keywords Religious discrimination
Authors Dr. Jana Eichmeyer LL.M and Dr. Karolin Andréewitch
AbstractAuthor's information

    Under a former Austrian law effective until February 2019, Good Friday was a public holiday only for a minority belonging to certain Christian Evangelical churches. In the case at hand, Austrian courts had to assess if this regulation and its legal consequences were valid under European Union law, or if they constituted discrimination.


Dr. Jana Eichmeyer LL.M
Dr. Jana Eichmeyer, LL.M is a lawyer at Eisenberger & Herzog in Vienna (www.ehlaw.at).

Dr. Karolin Andréewitch
Dr. Karolin Andréewitch is a lawyer at Eisenberger & Herzog in Vienna (www.ehlaw.at).

    Both the French Supreme Court and the Versailles Court of Appeal held that an employer, who must ensure that liberties and fundamental rights of each employee are respected in the working community, may lawfully prohibit the wearing of any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, provided that the rule contained in the company rules and regulations applies without distinction to employees in direct contact with the customers of the company only. But in the absence of such rules, sanctioning an employee who refuses to remove her Islamic veil based on the wish of a customer, which does not qualify as a genuine and determining occupational requirement, amounts to an unlawful direct discrimination and should consequently be held null and void.


Claire Toumieux
Claire Toumieux is partner and Thomas Robert is an attorney at Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, France.

Thomas Robert
Case Reports

2019/29 Eweida versus Achbita: a storm in a teacup? (EU)

Keywords Religious discrimination
Authors Morwarid Hashemi LLM
AbstractAuthor's information

    Most scholars have argued that the Achbita judgment is not in line with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, in particular with the Eweida judgment, and gives less protection to the employee than granted by the ECtHR. In this article, I provide a different perspective on the relation between both judgments and nuance the criticisms that followed the Achbita judgment.


Morwarid Hashemi LLM
Morwarid Hashemi LLM is a former student of Erasmus University Rotterdam
Case Reports

2019/30 The religious ethos and differences of treatment in employment on grounds of belief (EU)

Keywords Religious discrimination
Authors Andrzej Marian Świątkowski
AbstractAuthor's information

    The author discusses the recent ECJ judgments in the cases Egenberger and IR on religious discrimination.


Andrzej Marian Świątkowski
Andrzej Marian Świątkowski, is a Jean Monet Professor of European Labour Law and Social Security, Jesuit University Ignatianum, Krakow, Poland and a member of the EELC Academic Board.

    In two appeal cases considered jointly, the Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that it is not direct or indirect sex discrimination, nor a breach of equal pay rights, to provide enhanced pay for maternity leave and statutory pay only for shared parental leave (SPL).


Richard Lister
Richard Lister is a Managing Practice Development Lawyer at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    The Latvian Supreme Court recently used the ECJ Max Planck and Kreuziger judgments to explain how an employer can escape its obligation to compensate an employee for unused leave at the end of the employment relationship. The employer must prove that (a) it was possible for the employee to use the leave, and (b) the employer has in good time informed the employee that leave, if not used, might be lost and will not be compensated.


Gautier Busschaert
Gautier Busschaert is an Attorney at Van Olmen & Wynant.

    The Italian Court of Cassation has interpreted a new provision referring to the obligations of the new service provider towards the employees of the former provider.


Caterina Rucci
Caterina Rucci is founding partner of Katariina’s Gild.
Case Reports

2019/34 Reduction of annual leave during parental leave is lawful (GE)

Keywords Maternity and parental leave
Authors Nina Stephan and David Meyer
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Higher Labour Court of Berlin-Brandenburg (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG)) has held that the pro rata reduction of annual leave depending on the period of parental leave is lawful. In general, statutory holiday entitlement also exists for the period of parental leave. However, the employer has the right to reduce leave pro rata for each full month of parental leave according to Section 17 paragraph 1 sentence 1 of the Federal Parental Allowances and Parental Leave Act (Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz (BEEG)). The proportional reduction is in line with European law.


Nina Stephan
Nina Stephan is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

David Meyer
David Meyer is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

    A number of collective labour agreements unjustifiably have excluded allowances from holiday pay. Recently, social partners have had difficulties in repairing these flaws. Two recent cases demonstrate this, both similar claims but with different outcomes. This leaves social partners with the problem of how to proceed.


Jan-Pieter Vos
Jan-Pieter Vos is a lecturer of Labour Law at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands and editor of EELC.

    The decision pronounced by the first instance court related to the right of professional foster parents to request payment in lieu of untaken annual leave based on ECJ case law has been overruled by the Court of Appeal by making reference to a different ECJ ruling.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is the Managing Partner and Gabriela Ion is an associate at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm (https://www.suciu-employmentlaw.ro).

Gabriela Ion

    The Luxembourg Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Luxembourg) confirmed that an employee dismissed with notice and exempted from performing their work during the notice period is no longer bound by the non-competition duties arising from their loyalty obligation and can therefore engage in an employment contract with a direct competitor of their former employer during that exempted notice period. However, the Court of Appeal decided that, even if the former employee is in principle entitled to use the know-how and knowledge they acquired with their former employer, the poaching of clients during the notice period must, due to the facts and circumstances and in the light of the rules applicable in the financial sector, be considered as an unfair competition act and therefore constitutes serious misconduct justifying the termination of the employment contract with immediate effect.


Michel Molitor
Michel Molitor is the managing partner of MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour SARL in Luxembourg, www.molitorlegal.lu.

Régis Muller
Régis Muller is partner within the Employment, Pension & Immigration department of MOLITOR Avocats à la Cour SARL in Luxembourg, www.molitorlegal.lu.

    This was a case alleging detrimental treatment for whistleblowing brought by an employee working outside the UK against two co-workers also working abroad in the same location. The Court of Appeal (CA) ruled that there was no jurisdiction for the Employment Tribunal (ET) to hear the claim in relation to personal liability of the co-workers because they were outside the scope of UK employment law. The CA’s judgment potentially has implications for other types of claim brought by UK employees posted abroad where similar personal liability provisions apply, such as discrimination and harassment.


Richard Lister
Richard Lister is a Managing Practice Development Lawyer at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Rulings

ECJ 4 July 2019, case C-377/17 (Commission – v – Germany), Miscellaneous

European Commission – v – Federal Republic of Germany, supported by Hungary, German case

Keywords miscellaneous
Abstract

Rulings

ECJ 10 July 2019, case C-410/18 (Aubriet), Free movement

Nicolas Aubriet – v – Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Luxembourgish case

Keywords Free Movement
Abstract

    Requirement for granting financial aid for higher education found indirectly discriminatory.

Rulings

ECJ 29 July 2019, case C-659/17 (Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA), Miscellaneous

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) – v – Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA, Italian case

Keywords Miscellaneous
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-314/19, Transfer of undertakings

R.C.C. – v – M.O.L., reference lodged by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) on 16 April 2019

Keywords Transfer of undertakings
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-310/19 (P), Miscellaneous

Boudewijn Schokker – v – European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Appeal against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17

Keywords Miscellaneous
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-326/19, Fixed-term work

EB – v – Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others, reference lodged by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) on 23 April 2019

Keywords Fixed-term work
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-341/19, Religious discrimination

MH Müller Handels GmbH – v – MJ, reference lodged by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) on 30 April 2019

Keywords Religious discrimination
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-344/19, Working time

DJ – v – Radiotelevizija Slovenija, reference lodged by the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) on 2 May 2019

Keywords Working time
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-394/19, Free movement

PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR – v – Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS), reference lodged by the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) on 21 May 2019

Keywords Free movement
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-454/19, Free movement

Criminal proceedings against ZW, reference lodged by the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) on 14 June 2019

Keywords Free movement
Abstract

Pending Cases

Case C-483/19, Fixed-term work

Ville de Verviers – v – J, reference lodged by the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) on 24 June 2019

Keywords Fixed-term work
Abstract