The Lithuanian Supreme Court (the ‘Supreme Court’) has found that trade union members were discriminated against in a case where an employer granted non-union members more extended annual leave than union members based on their collective bargaining agreement.

The Danish Supreme Court has recently addressed the question whether it constituted discrimination to dismiss an employee who refused to work on a Saturday due to their religion.

Following last year’s decision in Forstater – v – CGD Europe and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that gender critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs. Nevertheless, this protection is not limitless and an employer can still take appropriate action to protect others’ rights without discriminating unlawfully.

Following last year’s ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that her ‘gender critical’ beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010, Maya Forstater has won her discrimination claim.

In a decision of 16 May 2022, the Belgian Court of Cassation ruled that the habitual place of work used for the purposes of identifying the competent jurisdiction by virtue of Article 19(2)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation must be determined based on a circumstantial method including both quantitative and qualitative criteria.

According to the Dutch Supreme Court, contractors enjoy protection under the Temporary Agency Work Directive (2008/104/EC) if they qualify as a temporary worker under the Directive. For this assessment a court has to inter alia determine whether the worker has an employment relationship with the temporary-work agency, using the definition of ‘employment relationship’ of the CJEU and not the definition under Dutch law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had wrongly ruled that independent workers in general also enjoy the protection of the Dutch implementation legislation of Article 6(2) of the Directive.

The 9th Senate of the German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, ‘BAG’) has (once again) submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ concerning leave law. It is asking for clarification as to whether the employer is obliged under EU law to (again) grant paid leave to an employee who, although not ill during the leave itself, had to remain in quarantine at home by official order during this period.

A recent Irish Labour Court judgment has found that it was correct for overtime and certain other allowances to be excluded from the calculation of payment for annual leave, and that the timeframe for the backdating of the claim was that set down in Irish legislation.

The legal obligation of the employer to request the performance of overtime in writing does not eliminate the possibility of the employee to prove the overtime by any other means.
In the case at hand, although the employer provided by way of internal regulations the framework for recording working hours and performance of overtime, the court was not bound to limit its legal assessment to it.

It can be within the State’s margin of appreciation to adopt legislation which renders conflicting collective agreements concluded by minority trade unions inapplicable.

Refusal of application because the applicant is too short found discriminatory based on size (art. 14 ECHR).

Dismissal based on GPS tracking of company vehicle by a device installed by the applicant’s employer with his full knowledge: no violation of the ECHR

No systemic problem with vetting process to combat corruption and to restore public trust in the justice system.

A collective agreement which offers lower pay to temporary agency workers compared to workers recruited directly must provide for countervailing benefits and must be able to be reviewed by the judiciary.

The concept of ‘claim’ in Article 81 of Regulation No 883/2004 refers only to an application made by a person who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement to the authorities of a Member State which is not competent under the conflict rules laid down by that regulation and EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude the application of national legislation which makes the retroactive effect of an application for child benefit subject to a limitation period of 12 months.

According to the Court of Justice, a person in receipt of pensions in two Member States is entitled to family benefits in accordance with the legislation of those two Member States. When the receipt of such benefits in one of those Member States is precluded pursuant to the national legislation, the priority rules referred to in Article 68(1) and (2) of Regulation No 883/2004 do not apply. The Court further held that national legislation which allows the recovery of family benefits awarded, where the parent entitled to such benefits pursuant to that legislation has not applied for them, to the other parent, whose application has been taken into account, in accordance with that provision, by the competent institution, and who in fact bears the entire cost associated with the maintenance of the child, is precluded.

Where national law requires, in respect of the company to be transformed, a separate ballot for the election of employees’ representatives nominated by the trade unions, that electoral arrangement must be preserved.

A person residing in a Member State who carries out, through a temporary employment agency established in another Member State, temporary work assignments in the territory of that other Member State, is during the intervening periods between those temporary work assignments subject to the national legislation of the Member State in which he or she resides, providing that, by reason of the temporary contract, the employment relationship ceases during those periods.

The goodwill indemnity which has been paid by the principal to the main agent in respect of the customer base brought by the subagent is capable of constituting, for the main agent, a substantial benefit. However, the payment of a goodwill indemnity to the subagent may be regarded as not being equitable, within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 86/653/EEC, where the subagent continues his or her commercial agency business in relation to the same clients and for the same products but in the context of a direct relationship with the main principal, which replaced the main agent that had previously engaged him or her.

According to the Court of Justice, religion and belief must be regarded as a single ground of discrimination, otherwise the general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation provided for by EU law, in particular by Directive 2000/78, will be undermined.

National legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police commissioners constitutes prohibited age discrimination.

A person who is not domiciled in a Member State may be sued in a court of the Member State where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, if he was not the formal employer but has warranted performance by the formal employer. Unfortunately, no English translation of the case is available.

A national provision which, as applied in domestic case law, results in a higher salary for persons who entered into service before that provision cafe into force, does not constitute age discrimination. Moreover, Directive 2000/78 only protects the grounds mentioned in Article 1 of that Directive.

An appeal against the General Court’s annulment of decision not to promote an EUIPO employee was dismissed.

Cross-border workers do not need to register a civil partnership that was entered into in another Member State to be granted a survivor’s pension.

A Member State can require, in order to provide study grants, that the child of a returned migrant worker has a connection with the Member State of origin, provided that such requirement applies to other nationals as well.

A university can extend a fixed-term contract with another fixed-term contract, without making this conditional of objective reasons connected with temporary or exceptional requirements. Also, the Court rules on various other issues.

Successful appeal of EC official against an application of transitional provisions regarding pension.