Zakres zmian prawa polskiego mających na celu implementację dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2019/1158 w sprawie równowagi między życiem zawodowym a prywatnym rodziców i opiekunów

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 184-190
Author(s):  
Dorota Olejniczak
Keyword(s):  
Parental Leave ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Council Directive

In the opinion of the author, the implementation of the Directive, which will replace the currently binding Council Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave, should consist primarily in the implementation of those of its provisions which extend the existing parental leave rights of employees or introduce new rights. In essential part, this it is possible by amending certain provisions of the Labour Code Act.

The Impact of European Law upon Regulations Governing Rights Related to Parenthood in Polish Labour Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Monika Latos-Miłkowska
Keyword(s):  
Parental Leave ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
European Standards ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Domestic Law

Membership in the European Union has created for the Polish legislator the duty to adjust Polish law to European standards. As parenthood is an area of intensive legislative activity of the European legislator, it has also come within the ambit of the adjustment obligation. Relevant here are, first and foremost, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave. Adjustment of Polish laws to the EU standard of rights related to parenthood has not been of a revolutionary magnitude and scale. Primarily, it relied on supplementing or specifying solutions that had already been the law. The most major changes affected family leave, considered the equivalent of parental leave regulated in Directive 2010/18. It is worth noting, however, that EU provisions in this respect have been amended several times, which has prompted the Polish legislator to review domestic law on an ongoing basis. In some fields, like the ban of night work of breastfeeding women compliance with EU standards still has not been obtained.

Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (November 2020-March 2021)

2021 ◽  
pp. 138826272110092
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
Parental Leave ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rest Periods ◽  
First Case ◽  
Family Benefits ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Italian Legislation

In this reporting period (November 2020-March 2021), five cases will be presented. The first case is INPS v WS (C-302/19), dealing with the Italian legislation that excludes Single Permit holders from receiving family benefits for their family members residing in a third country. In the second report, two cases rendered on the same day by the Grand Chamber of the Court are discussed. In D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija (C-344/19) and RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main (C-580/19), the Court clarified the circumstances under which periods of stand-by time could be considered as ‘working time’ or, alternatively, ‘rest periods’ under Directive 2003/88. XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (C-129/20) is the third case reported. It concerns an interpretation of the Framework Agreement on parental leave in the light of the Luxembourg legislation, which requires parents to be employed at the time of their child’s birth to benefit from parental leave. Finally, the case report ends with VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (C-16/19), a case of discrimination on grounds of disability.

The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 505-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Answering Questions

On 22 November 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgement in a preliminary ruling procedure from the Arbeitsgericht München (Labour Court Munich), answering questions concerning the interpretation of Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and as regards the construction of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Essentially, the Arbeitsgericht wanted to know whether a statutory provision exempting employees of 52 years of age and older from limitations to the conclusion of fixed-term contracts was compatible with Community law.

scholarly journals The Lack of Legal Protection of Union Rights on Termination of Fixed Term Academics at Public Universities in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Admissibility Issues of an Application Based on the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work at Public Universities in the Assessment by the Supreme Administrative Court of Belgium

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-231
Author(s):  
Gracienne Lauwers ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Universities ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Public University ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Flemish Community ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Council Of State

The question of sufficient protection of academics employed with successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships in the university sector had been raised in several procedures before the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter: CJEU). These cases deal with the substantive basis of the claims of the academics. Admissibility of their claims was not an issue. Unlike the research dealing with the substantive basis of the claims of academics based on the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, this article deals with a ruling on the admissibility of the plea based on the Framework agreement on fixed-term work encountered by academics in the Flemish Community of Belgium. The article first outlines the exception from general labour law in the Higher Education Code of the Flemish Community of Belgium that allows universities to employ academics indefinitely with fixed-term relationships through the practice of a mosaic combination of a part-time statutory employment under administrative law and a part-time contractual employment under labour law. It then discusses the impact of the exceptions on the admissibility of claims for damages, compensation and reinstatement by fixed-term academics at a Flemish public university based on the violation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC and Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP brought before the Council of State, which is the supreme administrative court of Belgium. The author argues that the Belgian Council of State incorrectly applied Directive 1999/70/EC and the Framework agreement on fixed-term work in judgment no. 247.434 of April 21, 2020, while it was – in its capacity of supreme administrative court of Belgium – under the obligation of Article 267 TFEU to refer for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. The refusal by the Belgian Council of State to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU and a wrong interpretation of Union law could result i. a. in State liability for damage resulting from breach of its obligations under Community law whereas the CJEU could have helped the Belgian Council of State in a preliminary ruling to determine the concept of ‘successive’ employment relationships, preventive measures and measures to punish abuse of fixed term contracts in Flemish universities, rule whether the articles in the Flemish Higher Education Code on vacancies and employment of fixed-term academic staff violate the Council Directive 1999/70/EC and Framework agreement on fixed-term work, and whether national Belgian procedural law makes the application for fixed-term academic staff at a Flemish public university virtually impossible or excessively difficult and therefore incompatible with the principle of effectiveness of Union law.

Relationship between fixed and permanent labor contracts in Georgian and international law

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-75
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Labor Law ◽  
Labor Contracts ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Labor Contract ◽  
Term Contract ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
International Labor ◽  
Term Labor

This article was written to describe the main regulations under Georgian labor law about fixed-term and permanent labor contracts. It was made to analyze the problems under Georgian Labor Code about regulating these two type of contracts. Under Georgian labor code the labor contract of fixed-term can be signed by the parties if the prerequisites strictly regulated by Georgian labor code is protected. It means that the parties can sign fixed-term labor contract only in few cases, which are written in Georgian labor Code. This article has for the main object to analyze these prerequisites strictly regulated by Georgian law, compare them to international labor documents and give recommendations to refi ne Georgian labor legislation. Under international law, under Social Charter, under COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP the fixed-term labor contract can be signed between two parties if there is an objective reason and this objective reason should be written in labor contract. Due to Georgian labor code there are five prerequisites to sign fixed-term labor contract. One of them is „another objective“ reason, which gives to employer the power to sign fixed-term labor contract with an employed with „another objective“ reason, the employer can use„ another objective reason“ without any obligation to prove why is he drafting the fixed-term contract with an employed person. According to this article the author tries to give recommendations to evaluate Georgian legislation and practice in labor law, gives the example of foreign country’s labor legislation and is trying to underline the need of good and fare interpretation of Georgian labor code about fixed-term labor contracts by Georgian court.

REFLECTIONS ON WORK-LIFE BALANCE FOR PARENTS AND GUARDIANS IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/1158 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny II (XXI) ◽  
pp. 189-207
Author(s):  
Justyna Czerniak-Swędzioł ◽  
Ewelina Kumor-Jezierska
Keyword(s):  
Parental Leave ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Work And Family ◽  
Work Life ◽  
Work Life Balance ◽  
Life Balance ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Flexible Working ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Market Opportunities

In this article the authors submit thorough analysis a new Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers as well as the repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU that entered into force on August 1, 2019, paying special attention to adjusting domestic regulations to it. The solutions adopted in this Directive lay down minimum requirements designed to achieve equality between men and women regarding labour market opportunities and treatment at work, by facilitating the reconciliation of work and family life for workers who are parents, or carers. To that end, this Directive 2019/1158 provides for individual rights related to the following: paternity leave, parental leave and carers’ leave, flexible working arrangements for workers who are parents, or carers.

MANGOLD v HELM (CASE C-144/04) GRAND CHAMBER, EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 22 NOVEMBER 2006

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-242
Author(s):  
Olga Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Older Workers ◽  
German Law ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Contract Of Employment ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Horizontal Direct Effect

Yet Another Way Round Horizontal Direct Effect…In June 2003 Werner Mangold, who was 56 years old, concluded a fixed-term contract of employment with Rüdiger Helm. The contract provided that its duration was based on para 14(3) of the TzBfG (German Law on Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment) which was intended to facilitate the fixed-term employment of older workers (those over the age of 52). A few weeks into his employment, Mangold brought proceedings against Helm before the Arbeitsgericht München (Munich Labour Court) claiming that the clause fixing the duration of his employment was void in that para 14(3) of the TzBfG, on which it was based, was incompatible with Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document