jurisprudence selection from the european labour law network

8/18/2019 Jurisprudence selection from the European Labour Law Network

1/23

Skip to main content

European Labour Law Network

• Search

• Member Login

• Home

• About ELLN

• National

Labour Law

•

EuropeanLabour Law

• Events

• Working Paper

• Young Scholar's log

• !eports

• "ontact

Recent European Court of Justice Rulings

17-02-2015: European Court of Justice Judgment in ECJ Case C-396/13

(!"#$a%o&en ammatti%iitto'

#he present case arises $rom a %ispute between a &innish tra%e union

S(hk)alo*en ammattiliitto r+ ,-the tra%e union./ an% a Polish un%ertaking

Elektrobu%owa Sp01ka Akc+*na ,-ESA./2345 Polish workers conclu%e% emplo+ment contracts with ESA in Polan% an%

were poste% to an% ESA branch in &inlan% a construction site o$ a nuclear power

plant2

#here are two issues in this E"6 "ase "7895:38;

&irstl+ the Polish compan+ ESA %i% not pa+ minimum wage rates o$ pa+ to the

emplo+ees in accor%ance with the applicable collective agreements which have

http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european_labour_law/court_rulings/ell_recent_court_decisions/prm/124/0/index.html#contenthttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european_labour_law/court_rulings/ell_recent_court_decisions/prm/124/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/c3/c3-login/prm/47/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/home/home_2014/prm/209/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/about_elln/about/prm/54/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/national_labour_law/prm/131/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/national_labour_law/prm/131/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/european_labour_law/prm/63/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/european_labour_law/prm/63/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/events/news_and_events/prm/68/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/working_paper/call_for_papers/prm/199/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/young_scholar/s_blog/forward/prm/229/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/reports/publications/prm/73/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/contact/prm/79/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european_labour_law/court_rulings/ell_recent_court_decisions/prm/124/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/c3/c3-login/prm/47/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/home/home_2014/prm/209/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/about_elln/about/prm/54/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/national_labour_law/prm/131/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/national_labour_law/prm/131/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/european_labour_law/prm/63/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european%3Cbr%3Elabour_law/european_labour_law/prm/63/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/events/news_and_events/prm/68/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/working_paper/call_for_papers/prm/199/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/young_scholar/s_blog/forward/prm/229/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/reports/publications/prm/73/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/contact/prm/79/0/index.htmlhttp://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/european_labour_law/court_rulings/ell_recent_court_decisions/prm/124/0/index.html#content


2/23

been %eclare% universall+ applicable an% thus $all within the scope o$


3/23

workers when the+ are poste% within the Member State concerne%

7 compensation $or %ail+ travelling time which is pai% to the workers on

con%ition that their %ail+ *ourne+ to an% $rom their place o$ work is o$ more than

one hour.s %uration must be regar%e% as part o$ the minimum wage o$ poste%

workers provi%e% that that con%ition is $ulBlle% a matter which it is $or thenational court to veri$+

7 coverage o$ the cost o$ those workers. accommo%ation is not to be regar%e% as

an element o$ their minimum wage

7 an allowance taking the $orm o$ meal vouchers provi%e% to the poste% workers

is not to be regar%e% as part o$ the latter.s minimum salar+ an%

7 the pa+ which the poste% workers must receive $or the minimum pai% annual

holi%a+s correspon%s to the minimum wage to which those workers are entitle%

%uring the re$erence perio%2F ,"7895:38/

10-02-2015: European Court of Justice Judgement on proationar)

periods in emp%o)ment contracts (ECJ Case C-117/1* (+istta"u,

oc%a.a'

#his re>uest was lo%ge% b+ the 6uGga%o %e lo Social No 8 %e Ma%ri% ,Spain/ on

33 March I3?2

Ms NisttahuG Poclava o$ olivian nationalit+ worke% as a cook $or a hotel

compan+2 Her contract $or $ull7time emplo+ment $ell within the categor+ o$

emplo+ment contracts o$ in%eBnite %uration to support entrepreneurs an% was

en%e% abruptl+ b+ the emplo+er a$ter ?C months terminating the emplo+ment

relationship with eJect $rom the %ate o$ notice2 #he contract state% that the

emplo+ee Ms NisttahuG Poclava woul% have a probationar+ perio% o$ one +ear2

#his was base% on Article ?,8/ o$ Law 8:I3 which was inten%e% to $acilitate

emplo+ment an% was an eKample o$ the legislative re$orm in the Bel% o$

emplo+ment prompte% b+ the %ecisions an% recommen%ations o$ the European

@nion on emplo+ment polic+2

#his law provi%e% $or a %iJerent probationar+ perio% than that was normall+

provi%e% $or un%er Spanish law an% that was unrelate% to the pro$essional skills

o$ the person recruite%2 Accor%ing to the re$erring court that provision

establishe% an at+pical contract with a BKe% term o$ one +ear which ma+ be

converte% into a contract o$ in%eBnite %uration once that perio% has elapse%2

&urthermore %uring the probationar+ perio% the emplo+ee has no legal

protection against %ismissal notabl+ as regar%s the $orm that %ismissal ma+

take the reasons $or which a %ismissal %ecision ma+ be taken an% the eKtent to

which a %ismissal is sub*ect to review b+ the courts2

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddddab8ff6dc8e4bc18b19c984f1240a85.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuPb3b0?text=&docid=162247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=57890http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddddab8ff6dc8e4bc18b19c984f1240a85.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuPb3b0?text=&docid=162247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=57890


4/23

Ms NisttahuG Poclava brought an action against her emplo+er seeking a

%eclaration that her %ismissal was un$air an% an or%er %irecting her emplo+er

either to reinstate her on the same terms as those applicable be$ore the

emplo+ment contract was terminate% or to pa+ her compensation e>uivalent to

88 %a+s. salar+ per +ear o$ service2 #he >uestions re$erre% are;

Ds national legislation un%er which emplo+ment contracts o$ in%eBnite %uration

to support entrepreneurs are ma%e sub*ect to a probationar+ perio% o$ one +ear

%uring which the emplo+ee ma+ $reel+ be %ismisse% contrar+ to E@ law an% is it

compatible with the $un%amental right guarantee% b+ Article 8I 3 o$ the

"harter o$ &un%amental !ights o$ the European @nionO

s the probationar+ perio% o$ one +ear to which emplo+ment contracts o$

in%eBnite %uration to support entrepreneurs are ma%e sub*ect pre*u%icial to the

ob*ectives o$ an% to the rules lai% %own in


5/23

%isagree however as to whether it was state% that his obesit+ $orme% part o$

the basis $or the %ismissal %ecision2

#he $ollowing >uestions were re$erre% to the European "ourt o$ 6ustice $or a

preliminar+ ruling;

-,3/ s it contrar+ to E@ law as eKpresse% $or eKample in Article 5 #E@concerning $un%amental rights generall+ or particularl+ $or a public7sector

emplo+er to %iscriminate on groun%s o$ obesit+ in the labour marketO

,/ $ there is an E@ prohibition o$ %iscrimination on groun%s o$ obesit+ is it

%irectl+ applicable as between a


6/23

1-12-201*: European Court of Justice Case C-*13/13 (+ 4unsten

nformatie en edia'

#he European "ourt o$ 6ustice Brstl+ hel% that Article 3I3 #&E@ was not

applicable in this case since this case concerns a purel+ internal situation

without impact on intra7"ommunit+ tra%e2 However since Article 5 Mw $aith$ull+repro%uces Article 3I3,3/ #&E@ the European "ourt o$ 6ustice %eci%e% that it has

*uris%iction to give preliminar+ rulings on >uestions concerning E@ law in

situations in which the $acts in the main procee%ings $all outsi%e the %irect

scope o$ that law provi%e% alwa+s that those provisions have been ren%ere%

applicable b+ the national law which a%opte% $or solutions applie% to purel+

internal situations the same approach as that $or solutions provi%e% $or un%er

E@ law2

#he E"6 then went on to answer the >uestions2 n principle a collective labour

agreement conclu%e% between associations o$ emplo+ers an% associations o$ emplo+ees which inten%s to improve emplo+ment an% working con%itions must

b+ virtue o$ their nature an% purpose be regar%e% as not $alling within the scope

o$ Article 3I3,3/ #&E@ ,see $2e2 the Alban+ *u%gment/2 However in this case the

sel$7emplo+e% substitutes are to be seen as -un%ertakings. within the meaning o$

Article 3I3,3/ #&E@ because the+ oJer their services $or remuneration on a

given market an% per$orm their activities as in%epen%ent economic operators in

relation to their principal2 #here$ore the organisation representing these service

provi%ers an% carr+ing out negotiations acting in their name acts as an

association o$ un%ertakings2 #here$ore this agreement was not a Dpropercollective labour agreementF but an agreement $alling within the scope o$

Article 3I3,3/ #&E@2

However the E"6 went on to warn that o$tentimes sel$7emplo+e% service

provi%ers are -$alse sel$7emplo+e%. that is to sa+ service provi%ers in a situation

comparable to that o$ emplo+ees2 Accor%ing to settle% case7law this happens

when the person %oes not %etermine in%epen%entl+ his own con%uct on the

market but is entirel+ %epen%ent on his principal because he %oes not bear an+

o$ the Bnancial or commercial risks arising out o$ the latter.s activit+ an%

operates as an auKiliar+ within the principal.s un%ertaking2 #he $act that a person accor%ing to national law can be >ualiBe% as sel$7

emplo+e% %oes not eKclu%e the possibilit+ that the person is to be regar%e% as

an Demplo+eeF accor%ing to the E@ %eBnition which is %eBne% accor%ing to

ob*ective criteria that characterise the emplo+ment relationship2 $ the person.s

in%epen%ence is merel+ notional it %isguises an emplo+ment relationship2 #he

E"6 hel% that the national court must %eci%e whether the persons in this case


7/23

are genuinel+ sel$7emplo+e% or $alsel+ sel$7emplo+e%2 #here$ore it must look

whether their relationship with the orchestra concerne% is not one o$

subor%ination %uring the contractual relationship so that the+ en*o+ more

in%epen%ence an% eKibilit+ than emplo+ees who per$orm the same activit+ as

regar%s the %etermination o$ the working hours the place an% manner o$ per$orming the tasks assigne% in other wor%s the rehearsals an% concerts2

#he E"6 conclu%e% that i$ the substitutes woul% be classiBe% b+ the national

courts as genuinel+ sel$7emplo+e% the agreements that their representative

organisations woul% conclu%e woul% $all within the scope o$ Article 3I3 #&E@2 $

the national courts woul% conclu%e that the persons are actuall+ to be regar%e%

as emplo+ees accor%ing to the E@ %eBnition then the collective agreement

woul% not $all within the scope o$ Article 3I3 #&E@ i$ the agreement woul%

%irectl+ contribute to the improvement o$ the emplo+ment an% working

con%itions o$ those substitutes ,as accor%ing to case law/2 #he E"6 hel% that thislast con%ition woul% be satisBe% so the outcome o$ the case %epen%s on the

classiBcation b+ the national courts o$ the substitutes2 ,"7?38:38/

05-12-201*: ECJ Case C-22/13 on ied-term Contracts (asco%o and

ot"ers'

Rn 5 November I3? the E"6 issue% a *u%gment on preliminar+ >uestions

%ealing with the interpretation o$ "lauses ? an% C,3/ o$ the &iKe%7term Work

Agreement o$ Article ,3/ an% ,/ o$ "ouncil ualit+ o$

arms in procee%ings eJective *u%icial protection the right to an in%epen%ent

court or tribunal an% a $air hearing ,Article 5,/ #E@ rea% in con*unction with

Article 5 o$ the European "onvention $or the Protection o$ Human !ights an%

&un%amental &ree%oms an% with Articles ?5 ?= an% C,8/ o$ the "harter o$

&un%amental !ights o$ the European @nion/2

Ms Mascolo an% the other claimants were all staJ members o$ publicl+7

maintaine% schools2 #he+ were recruite% un%er successive BKe%7term

emplo+ment contracts $or as much as up to =3 months over a perio% o$ nine

+ears while the+ were never grante% contracts o$ in%eBnite %uration a practice

accor%ing to talian law2 #he+ claime% that those successive BKe%7term

emplo+ment contracts were unlaw$ul an% went to court seeking the conversion

o$ the contracts into emplo+ment relationships o$ in%eBnite %uration an%

conse>uentl+ their establishment as tenure% staJ together with pa+ment o$

the salaries correspon%ing to the perio%s %uring which their emplo+ment was

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=160305&occ=first&dir=&cid=361789http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=160305&occ=first&dir=&cid=361789


8/23

interrupte% between the en% o$ one BKe%7term contract an% the commencement

o$ the neKt an% in the alternative compensation $or the %amage suJere%2

#he E"6 hel% that "lause C,3/ o$ the $ramework agreement on BKe%7term work

preclu%es national legislation that authorises the renewal o$ BKe%7term

emplo+ment contracts $or non7tenure% staJ to Bll posts o$ teachers an%a%ministrative technical an% auKiliar+ staJ that are vacant an% unBlle% without

stating a %eBnite perio% $or the completion o$ those proce%ures an% while

eKclu%ing an+ possibilit+ $or those teachers an% staJ o$ obtaining

compensation $or an+ %amage suJere% on account o$ such a renewal2 #his is so

because it appears that such legislation Brst %oes not permit ob*ective an%

transparent criteria to be i%entiBe% in or%er to veri$+ whether the renewal o$

those contracts actuall+ respon%s to a genuine nee% is capable o$ achieving the

ob*ective pursue% an% is necessar+ $or that purpose an% secon% %oes not

contain an+ other measure inten%e% to prevent an% punish the misuse o$ successive BKe%7term emplo+ment contracts2 #he Bnal %ecision in this case

shoul% be ma%e b+ the re$erring courts who have to *u%ge the circumstances o$

ever+ case2 ,"7:38/

05-12-201*: ECJ Case C-315/13 on posted 8or#ers (e C%erc and

t"ers'

#hermotec NT is a elgian compan+ which pro%uces in%ustrial cooling s+stems2

ts sister compan+ #hermotec sp2 G o2o2 was establishe% in Polan% ,carr+ing out

the same activit+ as #hermotec NT/2

uarters o$

#hermotec NT the social inspection services note% the presence o$ $our Polish

workers three o$ whom were emplo+e% b+ #hermotec sp2 G o2o2 #hermotec sp2 G

o2o2 ha% not re>ueste% E 3I3 $orms $or these emplo+ees2 &urthermore with

respect to the perio% prior to 3 April II= the %e$en%ants ha% not $orwar%e% the

names o$ those workers or the names an% a%%resses o$ their emplo+ers to the

social inspection service on their Brst working %a+2 With respect to the perio%

a$ter that %ate the %ata $or i%enti$+ing the persons who ha% been unable to

submit the acknowle%gement o$ receipt ha% not been $orwar%e%2

Rn 3 November II4 E 3I3 $orms with retroactive vali%it+ were %elivere% b+

the Polish social inspection service2

A report was %rawn up o$ the in$ringements committe% b+ #hermotec sp2 G o2o2

&urthermore b+ %ecision o$ 3= &ebruar+ I3 #hermotec NT an% its $our

%irectors ha% to appear be$ore the re$erring court to answer two charges2 #his

was not because the+ $aile% to make the pre7posting %eclaration which is

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0022&rid=4http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0022&rid=4


9/23

re>uire% o$ emplo+ers o$ poste% workers but because as en%7users or

contractors the+ $aile% to $orwar% the %ata $or i%enti$+ing persons who were

unable to submit the acknowle%gement o$ receipt2

#he "ourt %eci%e% to sta+ the procee%ings an% to re$er the $ollowing >uestion to

the "ourt o$ 6ustice $or a preliminar+ ruling;DMust the provisions o$ Articles C5 #&E@ an% C= #&E@ an% Article 8,3/ an% ,3I/ o$


10/23

calculate% pro rata on the number o$ hours worke%2 #he -%epen%ent chil%

allowance. is pai% b+ the emplo+er to meet part o$ the emplo+ee.s eKpenses $or

the maintenance o$ his or her chil%2 #he tra%e union hel% that the use o$ the

principle o$ Dpro rata temporisF principle as is lai% %own in the uestions to the E"6 asking whether the principle o$

pro rata temporis shoul% be applie% to this allowance2 $ this is the case coul%

the %isa%vantage suJere% b+ the part7time workers that results $rom making a

proportionate re%uction in the %epen%ent chil% allowance pai% ,to reect their

shorter working hours/ be ob*ectivel+ *ustiBe% un%er "lause ?23 o$ the

&ramework AgreementO #he thir% ensuing >uestion was that i$ the pro rata

temporis shoul% not be applie% an% no ob*ective *ustiBcation coul% be given $or

its use %oes Article 4 o$ the "harter o$ &un%amental !ights o$ the European

@nion ren%er invali% all the provisions o$ the collective agreement relating tothat area ,in this case chil% allowance/ i$ the national practice is to ren%er

invali% certain parts o$ the collective agreement when onl+ a point o$ %etail in

the collective agreement breaches an E@ law ruleO

#he E"6 observe% that the %epen%ent chil% allowance concerne% is not a beneBt

provi%e% $or b+ law an% pai% b+ the State but is pai% b+ the emplo+er pursuant

to a collective agreement an% as such it coul% not be seen as a -social securit+

beneBt. within the meaning o$ E" !egulation 448:II? however it %oes

constitute -pa+. to the worker which is %etermine% b+ the terms o$ the

emplo+ment relationship agree% between the worker an% the emplo+er2 &orpart7time workers the pro rata temporis calculation o$ the %epen%ent chil%

allowance there$ore was ob*ectivel+ *ustiBe% within the meaning o$ "lause ?23 o$

the &ramework agreement on part7time work as the E"6 has alrea%+ %eci%e% in

other cases as well2 t was also %eeme% to be appropriate within the meaning o$

"lause ?2 since the %epen%ent chil% allowance was an a%vantage that was

pai% in cash to workers an% was thus a %ivisible beneBt2

#he E"6 thus conclu%e% that the principle pro rata temporis as lai% %own in

"lause ?2 o$ ? Case 3162/07 on t"e arring of a former ecuritate

co%%aorator from pu%ic-ser.ice emp%o)ment (+aidin .@ ?omania'

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=159245&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=291917http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=159245&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=291917


11/23

n this case Mr2 Nai%in was electe% to Parliament in III when when the

National "ouncil $or the stu%+ o$ the $ormer political police archives ,Dthe

"NSASF/ carrie% out checks eK oUcio ,in accor%ance with the Law no2 344:3999

on the status o$ civil servants/ into the applicant.s past2 #he "NSAS conclu%e%

that Mr Nai%in ha% collaborate% with the Securitate the political police un%erthe $ormer communist regime between 39=3 an% 39=?2

n II8 a new Article CI was intro%uce% into the Law no2 344:3999 barring

in%ivi%uals $oun% to have worke% with the political police $rom emplo+ment in

the public service2 Rn the basis o$ this legislation in II? Mr2 Nai%in was

re$use% a place on the reserve list o$ %eput+ pre$ects2

#he "ourt E"H! note% that Article CI ha% intro%uce% a %iJerence in treatment

between persons wishing to take up or resume emplo+ment in the public

service base% on their past con%uct2

However the "onstitutional "ourt hel% that the barring o$ $ormer collaboratorso$ the political police $rom public7service emplo+ment was *ustiBe% b+ the

lo+alt+ eKpecte% $rom all civil servants towar%s the %emocratic regime an% the

recognise% that States ha% a legitimate interest in regulating emplo+ment

con%itions in the public service2 #he E"H! $oun% the %iJerence in treatment

applie% to Mr Nai%in to have a legitimate aim ,Dprotecting national securit+

public sa$et+ an% the rights an% $ree%oms o$ othersF an% to be proportional ,the

applicant coul% still obtain emplo+ment in the private sector in companies with

potential implications $or the State.s economic political an% securit+7relate%

interests an% in other areas o$ the public sector which %i% not involve theeKercise o$ public authorit+/2

#he "ourt thus conclu%e% that there ha% been no violation o$ Article 4 taken in

con*unction with Article 3? o$ the "onvention2 ,8435:I=/

2-10-201*: EC>? Case 73571/10 on reedom of Epression and Aaour

%igations(atB, .@ >ungar)'

#he applicant is a television *ournalist who was emplo+e% b+ the State television

compan+2 At the material time he also was chairman o$ the #ra%e @nion o$

Public Service roa%casters2 &ollowing the appointment o$ a new cultural

%irector the applicant ha% contacte% the television compan+.s presi%ent since

he ha% perceive% the new %irector.s con%uct in mo%i$+ing an% cutting certain

contents o$ his #T show as censorship2 He ha% receive% no response to his

complaint2 Later the applicant publishe% a book which containe% an $ull

versions o$ $rom %iJerent censure% interviews an% in7house letter eKchanges

between the cultural %irector an% the e%itor7in7chie$ concerning the suggeste%

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22003-4910840-6007274%22]%7Dhttp://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22003-4910840-6007274%22]%7D


12/23

changes in the programme2 #he %a+ a$ter the publication the television

compan+ %ismisse% $rom emplo+ment the applicant with imme%iate eJect2 #he

reason $or the applicant.s summar+ %ismissal was that b+ publishing the book

in >uestion he ha% breache% the conB%entialit+ clause containe% in his labour

contract2 #he "ourt consi%ere% that the %isciplinar+ measure %ismissing the applicant $or

publishing a book containing conB%ential in$ormation about his emplo+er as

en%orse% b+ the Hungarian courts constitute% an inter$erence with the eKercise

o$ the right protecte% b+ Article 3I o$ the "onvention2 An inter$erence with the

applicant.s rights un%er Article 3I V 3 will in$ringe the "onvention i$ it %oes not

meet the re>uirements o$ paragraph o$ Article 3I2 t shoul% there$ore be

%etermine% whether it was Dprescribe% b+ lawF whether it pursue% one or more

o$ the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph an% whether it was Dnecessar+

in a %emocratic societ+F in or%er to achieve those aims2 #he "ourt hel% thatthere ha% been a violation o$ Article 3I o$ the "onvention which was not

*usti$e%2 #here$ore the State ha% to pa+ compensation to the applicant2

,=8C=3:3I/

2-10-201*: ECJ Case C-252/13 on maternit) %ea.e (Commission . t"e

+et"er%ands'

#he "ommission starte% procee%ings against the Netherlan%s stating that the

Netherlan%s allege%l+ %i% not establish suUcientl+ clearl+ that i$ $emale workers

returning a$ter the en% o$ the perio% o$ maternit+ leave are con$ronte% with less

$avourable emplo+ment con%itions this is contrar+ to the prohibition on

%iscrimination on the groun%s o$ pregnanc+ chil%birth an% motherhoo%2

However the E"6 ha% to %ismiss the action because not all o$ the $ormalities o$

Article C4 E@ #reat+ ,eK 5 E"/ were complie% with2 More speciBcall+ the

"ommission %oes not i%enti$+ an+ rule o$ Netherlan%s law whose content or

application is contrar+ to the wor%ing or to the ob*ective o$ the relevant

provisions o$ ? Case **0/12 ()mos"en#o . D#raine'

#he case concerne% the ban on a strike b+ AeroSvit Airlines cabin crew2 n

September I33 Aerosvit cabin crew %eci%e% to embark on in%ustrial action

seeking resolution o$ a labour %ispute with the management o$ Aerosvit over a

number o$ issues inclu%ing salaries allowances an% sa$et+2 #he relevant

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-147276http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CN0252&qid=1413968616054&from=ENhttp://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-147276http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CN0252&qid=1413968616054&from=EN


13/23

authorities were notiBe% o$ the %ecision to hol% a strike2 &ollowing a claim

lo%ge% b+ Aerosvit in Rctober I33 the %omestic courts banne% the strike on

the groun% that it woul% be unlaw$ul2 #he courts relie% on the #ransport Act

which prohibits strikes at transport enterprises i$ the+ aJect the transportation

o$ passengers an% on the !esolution o$ Labour uest has

been ma%e in procee%ings between Ms Mascellani an% the Ministero %ella

iustiGia ,Ministr+ o$ 6ustice/ concerning a %ecision or%ering the conversion o$

her part7time emplo+ment relationship into a $ull7time emplo+ment relationship2

#he "ourt ,#hir% "hamber/ rule% that the &ramework Agreement on part7time

work conclu%e% on 5 6une 399= which is anneKe% to "ouncil


14/23

into a $ull7time emplo+ment relationship without the consent o$ the worker

concerne%2 ,"73:38/

10-10-201*: ECJ Case C-515/13 on t"e app%ication of irecti.e

2000/7/EC (ngenirforeningen i anmar#'n this case the uestion to the E"6

concerning the interpretation o$ the prohibition o$ %irect %iscrimination on

groun%s o$ age containe% in Articles an% 5 o$ uivalent to one two or threemonths. salar+ respectivel+ while this allowance is not to be pai% where the

salarie% emplo+ee upon termination o$ emplo+ment is entitle% to receive a

State retirement pensionO ,"7C3C:38/

26-09-201*: ECJ case C-5*9-/13 on free mo.ement of ser.ices and

posting (=undesdruc#erei'

n this case a erman court issue% a preliminar+ >uestion concerning the

interpretation o$ Article C5 #&E@ an% Article 8,3/ o$


15/23

E%e#troudo8a pFG#a #c)&na'H pending

n this case a &innish court re>ueste% a preliminar+ ruling2 #he $acts o$ the case

were summariGe% in the opinion o$ A%vocate7eneral Wahl; DAn un%ertaking

establishe% in Polan% posts workers to &inlan% in or%er to carr+ out work at the

construction site o$ a nuclear power plant2 @n%er collective agreements o$ -universal applicabilit+. in the relevant sector in &inlan% the workers are entitle%

to certain rights inclu%ing a minimum wage that consists o$ several %iJerent

elements2 #he workers subse>uentl+ assign the pa+ claims arising $rom those

collective agreements to a &innish tra%e union2 #he tra%e union then brings

procee%ings against the emplo+er seeking to en$orce those rights2 #wo issues

arise2 &irstl+ the re$erring court asks $or gui%ance in relation to the choice o$ law

to be applicable as to the assignment o$ pa+ claims2 Whereas assignment to a

thir% part+ ,here; a tra%e union/ is allowe% un%er &innish law an% even

constitutes a common practice in this particular conteKt such assignmentappears to be prohibite% un%er Polish law2 Secon%l+ the re$erring court en>uires

as to how the concept o$ -minimum rates o$ pa+. ought to be construe% $or the

purposes o$ uires the host Member State to

ensure a minimum level o$ protection ,concerning inter alia pa+/ $or workers

poste% within its territor+2 n that respect the "ourt has now the opportunit+ to

revisit its eKtensive bo%+ o$ case7law in this Bel% an% to provi%e to the eKtent

possible a positive %eBnition o$ the concept o$ minimum rates o$ pa+ within the

conteKt o$ posting o$ workers2F ,"7895:38/

17-09-201*: ECJ Judgment in case C-32/13 (;sterreic"isc"er


16/23

2 s Article 8,8/ o$ uestions to

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0328&qid=1410969269805&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62013CN0533&qid=1410969239910&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0328&qid=1410969269805&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62013CN0533&qid=1410969239910&from=EN


17/23

the E"6;

32 Must clause C,3/ o$ the &ramework Agreement on &iKe%7#erm Work anneKe% to

"ouncil


18/23

out in the anneK to uestion is in the aUrmative is a retroactive

amen%ment to the legislative $ramework which %oes not guarantee that

emplo+ees can claim the rights con$erre% on them b+ the %irective that is to

sa+ that the con%itions o$ emplo+ment speciBe% in the %ocument un%er which

the+ were recruite% will be observe% contrar+ to Article 4,3/ o$


19/23

3I o$ Legislative uences o$ on7going procee%ings b+ %irectl+ placing at a %isa%vantage the

worker an% beneBting the State in its capacit+ as emplo+er an% b+ eliminating

the possibilit+ con$erre% b+ the national legal s+stem o$ penalising the abusive

repeate% renewal o$ BKe%7term contractsO ,"753:38/ ,"75:38/

15-07-201*: re%iminar) uestion to t"e ECJ in case C-63/13 (?usso'

n this case the #ribunale %i Napoli re$erre% the $ollowing >uestions to the E"6;

32 When is an emplo+ment relationship to be regar%e% as being $or the public

service o$ the 'State' $or the purposes o$ "lause C o$ the $ramework agreement

set out in the anneK to


20/23

conversion into contracts o$ in%eBnite %uration2

#he E"6 remarke% Brst that to implement the &ramework uire% to a%opt measures that are proportionate

eJective an% %issuasive in or%er to ensure that the measures taken pursuant to

the &ramework Agreement are $ull+ eJective2 Accor%ing to the E"6 the talianlegislation complie% with those re>uirements since it provi%e% $or both a

preventive measure ,maKimum %uration o$ one +ear $or successive BKe%7term

contracts/ an% a penalt+ in the event o$ abuse ,conversion o$ successive BKe%7

term contracts into an emplo+ment relationship o$ in%eBnite %uration where a

worker has been emplo+e% continuousl+ b+ the same emplo+er $or longer than

one +ear/2

#here$ore the talian law setting a maKimum perio% o$ one +ear $or successive

BKe%7term contracts $or sea$arers an% b+ la+ing %own a penalt+ in the event o$

misuse o$ such contracts complies with the principles o$ E@ law2 National courtsmust carr+ out an assessment in each case to satis$+ themselves that such

contracts are not misuse% b+ emplo+ers2 ,"785:38 "7858:38 "7?I=:38/

26-06-201*: ECJ Case C-*13/13 (4unsten nformatie en edia'H ending

Case and %odged on 22 Ju%) 2013 (26-06-201*'

Rn 6ul+ I38 the erechtsho$ uest $or a

preliminar+ ruling to the European "ourt o$ 6ustice2

#he uestions i$ Dthe competition rules o$ European @nion

law must be interprete% as meaning that a provision in a collective labour

agreement conclu%e% between associations o$ emplo+ers an% associations o$

emplo+ees which provi%es that sel$7emplo+e% persons who on the basis o$ a

contract $or pro$essional services per$orm the same work $or an emplo+er as

the workers who come within the scope o$ that collective labour agreement

must receive a speciBc minimum $ee $alls outsi%e the scope o$ Article 3I3 #&E@

speciBcall+ on the groun% that that provision occurs in a collective labour

agreementO

$ the answer to the Brst >uestion is in the negative %oes that provision then $all

outsi%e the scope o$ Article 3I3 #&E@ in the case where that provision is ,also/

inten%e% to improve the working con%itions o$ the emplo+ees who come within

the scope o$ the collective labour agreement an% is it also relevant in that

regar% whether those working con%itions are thereb+ improve% %irectl+ or onl+

in%irectl+OF

Rn 34 6ul+ I3? Brst oral procee%ings took place2 ,"7?38:38/

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-07/cp140092en.pdfhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=143248&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=311109http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-07/cp140092en.pdfhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=143248&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=311109


21/23

26-06-201*: ECJ Case C-507/12 (aint ri' (26-06-201*'

#his re>uest $or a preliminar+ ruling concerns the interpretation o$ -worker. $or

the purposes o$ Article ?C #&E@ an% Article = o$ uest has been ma%e in the conteKt o$ procee%ings between Ms Saint PriK an%

the Secretar+ o$ State $or Work an% Pensions ,-the Secretar+ o$ State./

concerning the latter.s re$usal to grant income support to Ms Saint PriK2

#he "ourt rule% that Article ?C #&E@ must be interprete% as meaning that a

woman who gives up work or seeking work because o$ the ph+sical constraintso$ the late stages o$ pregnanc+ an% the a$termath o$ chil%birth retains the status

o$ -worker. within the meaning o$ that article provi%e% she returns to work or

Bn%s another *ob within a reasonable perio% a$ter the birth o$ her chil%2 ,"7

CI=:3/

25-06-201*: ECJ Case C-11/13 (=o%%ac#e'

#he E"6 state% in one o$ its latest ruling on pai% annual leave that national

legislation an% practice which in the event o$ a worker\s %eath preclu%es

pa+ment o$ the allowance in lieu o$ pai% annual leave not taken is contrar+ to E@

law2 Moreover the "ourt rule% that allowance %oes not %epen% on a prior

application b+ the intereste% part+2

#here$ore DArticle = o$ ueste% a preliminar+ !uling with the

E"6 with regar% to the interpretation o$ Article 8 ,8/ o$ "ouncil


22/23

#he >uestions re$erre% are;

a2 s the wor%ing o$ Article 8,8/ o$


23/23

27-05-201*: re%iminar) uestion to ECJH Case C-221/13 asce%%ani

#he talian #ribunale %i #rento re$erre% a >uestion to the E"6 about the

interpretation o$ "lause C2 o$ the Agreement implemente% b+ the Part7time

Work uirements o$ the establis

] II4ZI35 European Labour Law Network ^ mprint ^ ELLN on &acebook ELLN

on #witter

European Network o$ legal eKperts in the Bel% o$ labour law %ealing with both

in%ivi%ual an% collective rights an% aspects2

ELLN !estatement Pro*ect

• Sitemap

• Newsletter subscription

• !ecommen% site

• Print content

Supported by

•

jurisprudence selection from the european labour law network

Documents