The Austrian Supreme Court has held that the selection of employees for redundancy because of their entitlement to an early retirement pension constitutes unfair dismissal on grounds of direct age discrimination. Although it was accepted that individual employers (here the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) can pursue a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, the means to achieve that aim were not considered appropriate and necessary. The Court stressed that a balance must be struck between the interests of older and younger employees, taking into account that it is generally easier for younger employees to find a new job. In the case at hand, however, the employer had not managed to show that its redundancy selection programme met that requirement.

The Curia (Hungarian Supreme Court) stated in its ruling that length of service is not a protected characteristic under discrimination law. Length of employment cannot be considered as a core feature of the individual based on which he or she would belong to a specific group, as it is a result of his or her own actions. It therefore cannot be treated as a ‘miscellaneous’ ground for the purposes of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Act. Further, length of service cannot be linked to age discrimination. The length of service of an employee is not directly connected to age, therefore treatment of an employee based on length of service with a specific organisation cannot be considered age discriminatory.
A claim based on discrimination must be supported by a comparator. Employees with different educational backgrounds and jobs with different the educational requirements, are not comparable for the purposes of equal treatment law.

A claim for compensation for discrimination was not excluded simply because the applicant did not have the ‘objective qualifications’ necessary for the job. According to the German General Equal Treatment Act (the ‘Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz’, or ‘AGG’), what is necessary for a compensation claim is a ‘comparable situation’. According to the latest decision of the German Federal Labour Court (the ‘Bundesarbeitsgericht’, or ‘BAG’) this can occur even if the applicant does not fulfill the general requirements to do the job.

For the first time, a Belgian court has relied on the Kaltoft case, which holds that obesity may constitute a disability. That case gives rise to protection against discrimination, according to the Labour Tribunal of Liège, even if it is falsely presumed. This is the case where an employer sends an email to an applicant stating that the applicant cannot be hired because his or her obesity is a disability in relation to the job.

The dismissal of a pregnant employee upon her employer’s business takeover was deemed to be unlawful discrimination.

In a precedent-setting case, the Danish Supreme Court recently ruled that a pregnant employee under notice, who claimed discrimination because she had not been reassigned to a vacant position that arose during the notice period, was not discriminated against.

A Spanish Supreme Court decision issued on 17 October 2016 (no. 848/2016) declares employee terminations void because the employer failed to respect the proper collective redundancy procedures based on the thresholds provided by EU Directive 98/59. The thresholds in the Directive refer to the number of employees at the establishment, whereas thresholds under Spanish law refer to the whole company. In implementing the Directive, Spanish law had aimed at being more favourable to employees, but this did not happen on the facts of this case.

Following consultations with its employees in accordance with the Finnish Codetermination Act (334/2007), a company informed the employees that it would close down its current office premises and move its operations, including all of its employees, to another location. An employee, whose employment contract expressly stipulated the location of the old office as the fixed place of work, refused to transfer and did not arrive at the new place of work after the transfer. The company considered the employee’s absence unjustified and terminated her employment with immediate effect. The Supreme Court held that an employer can, as an alternative to termination of employment, unilaterally amend material terms of employment provided it notifies the employees sufficiently clearly of the terms being amended, the time when the new terms would come into effect, the grounds for termination, and the consequences of not accepting the amendments.

The Dutch Cantonal judge prohibited a strike because the safety of passengers could not be guaranteed. At the hearing, which took place a few days after the Berlin Christmas market attacks, weight was given to the threat of terrorism. Nor is this the first time the threat of terrorism has been explicitly referred to by a Dutch court in a case concerning the right to strike.

In a much publicised case, Uber drivers have won a first instance employment tribunal finding that they are ‘workers’ and not self-employed contractors. This decision means that they are entitled to basic protections, such as the national minimum wage, paid holiday (under the Working Time Directive) and protection against detriment for ‘blowing the whistle’ on wrong doing. The decision could have substantial financial consequences for Uber, which has around 40,000 drivers in the UK but Uber has already confirmed that it will appeal the decision, so we are unlikely to have a final determination on this question for some time.

The ECJ found that a gay lecturer was not unlawfully discriminated against under an occupational pension scheme that did not entitle those over a certain age or sexual orientation to claim a survivor’s benefit for their (same-sex) civil partner or spouse.

Under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, if an employer becomes insolvent in circumstances where it previously withheld funds from an employee’s salary to pay into an occupational pension scheme – but then failed to make those payments – there is no requirement to exclude those funds from the scope of insolvency proceedings.

A ‘temporary’ inability to work may qualify as a ‘long-term’ limitation within the meaning of the ECJ’s case law on Directive 2000/78. Whether this is the case is for the national court to determine. The court may take into account that it is not clear how long the person may take to recover.

These cases concern the refusal by Luxembourg to grant financial aid to students studying in Luxembourg whilst living in France or Belgium, when they would be entitled to such aid under Regulation 492/2011 on free movement (pursuant to Article 45 TFEU), based on their family circumstances, were it not that the person employed in Luxembourg was not their father but their stepfather. The ECJ found in favour of the students.

Where no agreement is reached with employee representatives on a planned collective redundancy, the employer must try to obtain permission from the Minister for Labour – who rarely gives it. The employer in this case argued successfully that this was a serious obstacle to its to freedom to establish and conduct business in Greece.

These cases relate to Decision 1/80 of the ‘Association Council’, a body established pursuant to the 1963 Association Agreement between Turkey and the EU. In both cases, the German immigration authorities had rejected an application to extend the residence permit of a Turkish national but the ECJ found they had a right of residence.

Requiring staff to complete five service years before progressing from the first to the second step on the salary scale, but requiring only two service years for each next step, is not age-discriminatory.

Mrs Tolley, a disabled UK national, emigrated from the UK to Spain in 2002, at age 50. Before she left the UK, because she was unable to prepare a meal for herself, she was in receipt of DLA (disability living allowance) benefits. These benefits were stopped when she left the UK, because under UK law, only residents are eligible. Mrs Tolley appealed successfully to the First-tier Tribunal. Its decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred questions to the ECJ, all relating to Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of social security legislation within the EU (now Regulation 883/2004). The ECJ found in Mrs Tolley’s favour.