General subsequent payment based on salary step not found discriminatory, provided that it protects existing acquired rights and if it does not prolong age discrimination. A summary will be provided once an English translation becomes available

Additional benefits paid to high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors are not ‘old-age benefits’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation 883/2004, but Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 preclude that they are made conditional of having the nationality of that Member State.

The requirements to obtain a right of residence by way of working for 12 months in the last 3 years also apply to persons who have reached the pensionable age during that period.

A reduction of old-age pensions under Directive 2008/94 is manifestly disproportionate if the former employee lives or would have to leave below Eurostat’s at-risk-of-poverty threshold, even if s/he receives at least half of the amounts of the benefits from his/her acquired rights.

Austrian rehabilitation allowance qualifies as a sickness benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004. Denial of that benefit found possible.

In a surprise decision, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications, an Employment Tribunal (ET) has found that ‘workers’ as well as traditional ‘employees’ are covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE).

Employees’ remuneration adversely affected by the application of new retrospective law found in breach of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

The protection of an employee’s freedom of expression is not limited to comments in a debate on public matters only.

On-board services on international trains do not fall under the scope of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers if most of the work is performed in one Member State.

Many national decisions in Germany in the past had to deal with employers’ requirements regarding religious symbols in the workplace. Also, in 2017, the ECJ has dealt with two matters of such. Whilst the ECJ strictly refers to the principles of entrepreneurial freedom, the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, the ‘BAG’) tends to give priority to religious freedom. Last year, the BAG appealed to the ECJ for final clarification, in particular regarding the relationship between the basic rights of entrepreneurs and the constitutional right to religious freedom, by way of a preliminary ruling procedure with its decision dated 30 January 2019.

In a recent case on fixed-term employment, the Danish Supreme Court addressed the question of what constitutes a comparable permanent employee. The Supreme Court ruled that four employees, who worked in a government agency, were not comparable with the agency’s permanent employees and for this reason they had not been discriminated against on the grounds of their fixed-term contracts.

Reduction of allowance for living costs for EEAS staff – ECJ annuls judgment of General Court – case referred back to the General Court.