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.

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.

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.

Mr Veit’s complaint against his salary scale classification was dismissed.

The ECJ, like the General Court, dismissed the appeal against the imposed disciplinary sanction.

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 Poggiolini.

Member States may impose additional criteria in reserving the right to participate in public procurement to particular sheltered workshops, provided that they comply with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

Internal EU Case. Appeal against disciplinary pension deduction dismissed.

The Commission is not bound to give effect to the social partners’ request seeking implementation, at EU level, of the agreement that they have concluded.

On 22 May 2020, fifty-two members of the Hungarian parliament petitioned the Constitutional Court which was requested to establish the unconstitutionality of Section 6(4) of Government Decree no. 47/2020 (III. 18), its conflict with an international treaty and to annul it with retroactive effect to the date of its entry into force. According to Section 6(4) of the Decree “in a separate agreement, the employee and the employer may depart from the provisions of the Labour Code” (i.e. ‘absolute dispositivity’). The petition, among other things, alleged the violation of equal treatment and the right to rest and leisure. The Constitutional Court rejected the motion to establish the unconstitutionality of Section 6(4) and its annulment, since it was repealed on 18 June 2020. The Constitutional Court may, as a general rule, examine the unconstitutionality of the legislation in force, however it was no longer possible to examine the challenged piece of legislation in the framework of a posterior abstract norm control.

Appeal against termination of agency contract was dismissed.

Appeal to annul the appellant’s 2013 staff (performance) report rejected.

EC’s Rejection of request to join the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the Institutions of the European Communities found illegitimate, case referred back to General Court.

Mandatory vaccination policies may not be contrary to art. 8 ECHR.

European Anti-fraud Office and the Commission not found liable for alleged conduct in the context of criminal investigations against a former employee.

Appeal to annul the appellant’s 2014 and 2015 staff (performance) reports rejected.

The prohibition to ‘take up a position’ within the meaning of Article 22(a)(1)(a) of Directive 2006/43 includes concluding an employment contract, even if the employee has not yet begun to actually perform his or her duties in that post.