Search result: 8 articles

x
The search results will be filtered on:
Category Case Reports x
Case Reports

2018/27 Citizen’s rights after Brexit: no preliminary questions to the ECJ (NL)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2018
Keywords Free movement, Work and residence permit, Other forms of free movement
Authors Jan-Pieter Vos
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Amsterdam Court of First Instance had contemplated asking certain preliminary questions to the ECJ about the EU rights of UK citizens residing outside the UK (see EELC 2018/18), but the Court of Appeal has now refused this, considering the underlying claims to be too vague.


Jan-Pieter Vos
Jan-Pieter Vos is a lecturer in labour law at Erasmus University Rotterdam
Case Reports

2018/18 Preliminary questions to ECJ about Brexit implications for UK citizens? (NL)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2018
Keywords Free movement, Work and residence permit, Other forms of free movement
Authors Jan-Pieter Vos
AbstractAuthor's information

    Recently, the Court of Amsterdam decided to ask preliminary questions to the ECJ about EU citizens’ rights of British nationals, anticipating Brexit. However, two weeks later, it allowed an appeal against this decision. It is therefore unclear if and when these questions will be asked.


Jan-Pieter Vos
Jan-Pieter Vos is a lecturer of Labour Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    An acquired mother tongue is – at least indirectly – connected to a person’s origin and therefore also linked to ethnic origin. Claims based on the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, the ‘AGG’) must be brought in writing within two months after knowledge of a possible discrimination. Time only starts to run for claims after the employer has provided an unsuccessful job applicant with a clear and definite statement that he or she has been rejected. The limitation period under the AGG will not be triggered by lapse of time only.


Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is an attorney at law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

Jana Voigt
Jana Voigt is an attorney at law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

    A recent decision by the Labour Court found that a policy requiring employees to speak English in the workplace constituted discrimination on grounds of national origin but was objectively justifiable.


Orla O’Leary
Orla O’Leary is a Senior Associate at Mason Hayes & Curran.
Case Reports

2017/30 Discrimination of workers’ representatives – burden of proof (LI)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2017
Keywords Discrimination (other), Discrimination of workers’ representatives
Authors Vida Petrylaite
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Lithuanian Supreme Court has found discrimination against an employee based on his trade union activities and ruled that there was no need for the burden of proof to shift to the employer.


Vida Petrylaite
Vida Petrylaite is a partner with CONFIDENCE Law Office, Vilnus (www.confidence.lt).
Case Reports

2017/12 Court of Appeal rejects argument that Christmas strikes are unlawful under EU law (UK)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2017
Keywords Collective labour law, industrial actions, unions
Authors Vince Toman and David Hopper
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Court of Appeal has confirmed that industrial action called with the object or purpose of infringing the cross-border freedom to establish and receive services would be unlawful. It rejected the argument that industrial action would be unlawful if it made it unattractive for foreign companies to operate in the UK or if cross-border services might potentially be disrupted. These wider tests would be inconsistent with European case law on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and would be incompatible with proper protection of the right to strike.


Vince Toman

David Hopper
Vince Toman and David Hopper are respectively Head of the Trade Union and Collective Employment Law Group and Senior Associate at Lewis Silkin LLP.

    The UK Supreme Court has held that the mistreatment of two Nigerian employees based on their vulnerable immigration status, did not amount to direct or indirect discrimination. The question for the Court was whether the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of their nationality. The Court accepted that immigration status is a function of nationality, but that it is not the same thing.


Hayley Band
Hayley Band is a Paralegal at Lewis Silkin LLP, www.lewissilkin.com.
Case Reports

2016/3 Supreme Court allows transferee to differentiate between ‘own’ and acquired employees (PL)

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2016
Keywords Differing the monthly wages after the workplace has been moved on to another employer
Authors Ph.D Marcin Wujczyk
AbstractAuthor's information

    Paying employees acquired by way of the transfer of an undertaking less than the transferee’s original staff not discriminatory. The Supreme Court recently came to this conclusion based on a rather daring interpretation of a provision of national law aimed at transposing an EU directive. Although Polish law obligates employers to treat employees who perform the same work equally regardless of personal characteristics, the provision at issue should be read more narrowly.


Ph.D Marcin Wujczyk
Marcin Wujczyk, Ph. D., is a partner with Ksiazek & Bigaj in Krakow, www.ksiazeklegal.pl.
Showing all 8 results
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.