A firm intention announcement must be made when the offeror is able and willing to acquire securities, and when a mandatory offer must be made. When the firm intention announcement is implemented, some sort of a contract is created. This rule has helped to determine the particular time the offeror should be liable to minorities. The question of when the offeror should bear the obligation to implement mandatory offers in aborted takeovers is thus no more problematic. Previously, the courts wrestled with this issue, but delivered what appears to be unsatisfactory decisions. This article will discuss the effect of a firm intention announcement and the responsibility that attends the making of that announcement. It intends to illustrate the extent of liability the offeror must bear in the event of a lapsed takeover, before and after the making of the firm intention announcement. The article examines the manner in which takeover rules can be enforced, and whether the current measures afford minorities proper protection. This brings to light the issue of equal treatment in takeovers and the fallacy thereof. A minor appraisal of the takeover rules in two jurisdictions in Europe (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is conducted to assess how equal treatment for minorities is promoted. Due to the difficulty minorities may experience in enforcing equal treatment in company takeovers, the article advocates for the alteration of the current South African takeover procedure for the promotion of minorities’ interests and for establishing rules that provide the offeror adequate information.

Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2003/88 do not apply to national rules providing for special leave on days when workers are required to work, when these days occur during weekly rest periods or paid annual leave.

The Greek Supreme Court, in a case about the transfer of a business and the obligation on the transferee to continue employing the transferred employees, underlined the importance of a thorough and genuine control on all factors to be taken into consideration in order to conclude on the existence of a transfer of undertaking or not: the business transferred must retain an autonomous economic identity, in the sense that the functional link between the different factors transferred is retained, thus allowing the new entity to use them in order to exercise an economic activity identical or similar to the previous one.

Workers are entitled, for the period between an unlawful dismissal and reinstatement as an employee, to annual paid leave or, at the end of the employment relationship, to a payment in lieu of such leave not taken.

EC infringed its obligations to state reasons for not including an applicant on the reserve list for an open competition position.

Analysing the national legal framework in relation to the protection of pregnant employees and employees who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, provisions which transposed the regulations of Directive 92/85/EEC and of the conclusions in case C-103/16, Jessica Porras Guisado – v – Bankia S.A. and Others, the Constitutional Court of Romania ascertained that the dismissal prohibition of a pregnant employee is strictly restricted to reasons that have a direct connection with the employee’s pregnancy status. As for other cases where the termination of the employment contract is the result of disciplinary misconduct, unexcused absence from work, non-observance of labour discipline, or termination of employment for economic reasons or collective redundancies, the employer must submit in writing well-reasoned grounds for dismissal.

Internal EU staff cases. Earlier judgments implying that panel of judges had been irregular affect the unity and consistency of EU law.

The Greek Supreme Court in Plenary Session, in a long-awaited decision, has ruled that an employee who has not been able to exercise his right to annual leave due to long-term sick leave is still entitled to his paid annual leave as well as to annual leave allowance.

Within the context of a transfer of undertaking in an asset reliant group of companies, the court should not just focus on whether the assets have been transferred between the two separate group companies, but also on whether one group company had actual control over the operation of the other group company.

Within the context of Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011/EU, legislation which provides for reimbursement of costs of school transport on the condition that the recipient lives in a federal state constitutes indirect discrimination, as it puts frontier workers on a disadvantage compared to workers living in that member state. Practical difficulties connected to an efficient organisation of this school transport are not imperative reasons of public interest which justify such indirect discrimination.

A Member State can require a driver of a vehicle with a digital tachograph, if both automatic and manual entry are lacking, to present a statement which his employer has drawn up according to the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities.