¿Fin del derecho a indemnización por cese del personal laboral interino al servicio de la Administración? La STS (Social) de 13 de marzo de 2019

RVAP 118 - Revista Vasca de Administración Pública / Herri-Arduralaritzarako Euskal Aldizkaria ◽

10.47623/ivap-rvap.114.2019.06 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 245-271

Author(s):

José CABRERA RODRÍGUEZ

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

Temporary Employee ◽

The Supreme Court

LABURPENA: Administrazio Publikoaren lan-kontratupeko bitarteko langileek beren lanpostua utzi beharragatik kalte-ordaina automatikoki jasotzeko eskubidearen aukera ireki zuen Diego Porras kasu entzutetsuak. Auzitegi Gorenak judizio aurreko bigarren gai bat planteatzean eta kasazioan gaiari emandako azken ebazpenean, hala ere, aukera hori hutsaldu egin da, eta, hala, bitarteko lan-kontratuen kalte-ordainerako araubidearen gainekoa gaizki-ulertu bat izan zela berretsi da. Hala ere, kasazioan emandako epaia adi irakurriz gero, argi ikusten da adierazpeneko alderdirik esanguratsuenak ez direla itxitzat jotzen dituen gai juridikoak, baizik eta zabalik uzten dituenak. Hala nola, bitarteko langile baten lanpostu-uzte irregularrak izango lituzkeen ondorioak edo langile «ez finko mugagabetzat» jo den langilearen kalte-ordainerako eskubideak. ABSTRACT: The notorious case Diego Porras opened a path to an automatic right to severance payment on termination of employment for the temporary staff in the Administrations. The second reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court and the final ruling on the case in appeal has denied that possibility and rectified what it seemed to be just a misconception of the compensation regime for provisional contracts. Nevertheless, a detailed reading of the judgment on appeal shows that the most relevant part of the ruling are not the issues settled but those left open. Among them, the consequences arising from an irregular termination of employment of a temporary employee and the rights to compensation of that worker that is considered not permanent but with an open-ended contract. RESUMEN: El célebre asunto Diego Porras abrió la posibilidad de un derecho indemnizatorio automático por cese al personal laboral interino de la Administración pública. El planteamiento de una segunda cuestión prejudicial por el Tribunal Supremo y la resolución final del asunto en casación han desmentido esta posibilidad y han rectificado lo que pareció ser un malentendido inicial sobre el régimen indemnizatorio del contrato de interinidad. Sin embargo, una lectura detenida de la sentencia dictada en casación demuestra que lo más relevante del pronunciamiento no son las cuestiones jurídicas que zanja, sino las que deja abiertas. Entre ellas, las consecuencias que tendría el cese irregular de un trabajador interino y la de los derechos indemnizatorios del declarado «indefinido no fijo».

Download Full-text

Sperry Corp. v. United States

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202794 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 86-90

Author(s):

Rose Cecile Chan

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

World Trade ◽

The United States ◽

United States Constitution ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

Fifth Amendment ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Federal Circuit

Plaintiffs, Sperry Corp. and Sperry World Trade Inc. (Sperry), received an award from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). Upon payment of the award, the United States deducted 2 percent of the total amount pursuant to a directive license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury regarding recovered claims by U.S. nationals against Iran. When plaintiffs challenged the authority of the Treasury to make the deduction and the United States Claims Court announced a preliminary ruling that concurred with plaintiffs’ position, the Executive persuaded Congress to approve legislation authorizing specified percentages to be deducted by the United States from Tribunal awards to U.S. citizens. Responding to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the newly enacted statute, the United States Claims Court dismissed the suit and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (per Meyer, J.) reversed and held: that the deduction constitutes a taking without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In September 1988, the United States filed notice of appeal with the Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

Baltic Journal of European Studies ◽

10.1515/bjes-2019-0041 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. 150-172

Author(s):

Václav Stehlík ◽

David Sehnálek

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

The European Union ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Lower Courts ◽

The Eu

Abstract The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text