This article presents an interdisciplinary comparison of British and German legal arguments concerning the justification of the use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It is situated in the broader framework of research on strategic culture and the use of international law as a tool for justifying state behaviour. Thus, a gap in political science research is analysed: addressing legal arguments as essentially political in their usage. The present work questions whether differing strategic cultures will lead to a different use of legal arguments. International legal theory and content analysis are combined to sort arguments into the categories of instrumentalism, formalism and natural law. To do so, a data set consisting of all speeches with regard to the fight against ISIS made in both parliaments until the end of 2018 is analysed. It is shown that Germany and the UK, despite their varying strategic cultures, rely on similar legal justifications to a surprisingly large extent.

The interpretive techniques applied by the European Court of Human Rights are instrumental in filling the vaguely formulated rights-provisions with progressive content, and their use provoked widespread criticism. The article argues that despite the scarcity of explicit references to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, all the ECtHR’s methods and doctrines of interpretation have basis in the VCLT, and the ECtHR has not developed a competing framework. The Vienna rules are flexible enough to accommodate the interpretive rules developed in the ECHR jurisprudence, although effectiveness and evolutive interpretation is favoured – due to the unique nature of Convention – over the more traditional means of interpretation, such as textualism. Applying the VCLT as a normative framework offers unique ways of reconceptualising some of the much-contested means of interpretation in order to increase the legitimacy of the ECtHR.

By a majority of 4-3, the Supreme Court of Ireland has held that the Workplace Relations Commission’s power to adjudicate disputes between employers and employees was not unconstitutional. However, the majority of the Supreme Court did find that certain aspects of the Commission’s procedures were unconstitutional, namely the blanket ban on public hearings and the lack of capacity for taking evidence on oath. The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the Workplace Relations Commission procedures have consequently been amended to address these issues. This case report is a follow-up on EELC 2020/34.

Necessary travel time outside working hours constitutes working time.

If parties choose the applicable law pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Rome I Regulation, the objectively applicable law (ex Article 8(2-4) does not apply with the exception of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement’. Moreover, the choice for the applicable law must be free, but is considered to be made freely even if the employee merely accepts a clause drafted by the employer.

The wording of a global exclusion clause in an employment contract also covered claims asserted on the grounds of intentional damage. However, such a clause was invalid in the case at hand because it resulted in a shortening of the statutory limitation periods. Both parties to the employment contract could not therefore refer to such a contractual exclusion clause. The consequence was that the statutory limitation periods applied. The employer can also invoke the invalidity of the exclusion clause, even if it drafted the clause itself. The judgment may also have important consequences for collective agreements.

The Grand Chamber of the Slovakian Supreme Court has unanimously decided that employers cannot be penalised by two different agencies for one violation of employment law rules and that the ne bis in idem principle also applies to two administrative breaches of the law.

The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court has held that not only employees working under an employment relationship but also state officials enjoy special protection against termination.

Successful appeal against General Court Order dated 3 July 2020 on rejection of claims regarding recovery of pension amounts. The case is referred back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Tognoli and Others.

The concept of ‘sale of goods’ referred to in the self-employed commercial agents directive covers the supply of licensed computer software.

Ryanair and Crewlink have finally been found in violation of Belgian mandatory provisions following the ruling of the ECJ in cases C-168/16 and C-169/16 (Nogueira and Others) and ordered to pay certain amounts to the employees involved by virtue of Belgian mandatory provisions. Yet, this trade union victory has a bitter taste for those employees, who were refused their main claim, i.e. to be paid normal remuneration for on-call time at the airport.

Economically inactive Union citizens residing in a Member State other than their Member State of origin have the right to be affiliated to the public sickness insurance system of the host Member State, but not necessarily free of charge.