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.

Case Note — Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2010: ECJ finally paves the way for unisex premiums and benefits in insurance and related financial service contracts

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Temming
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Service Contracts ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Insured Person ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Article 5

The reference for preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004, implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (hereinafter “Directive 2004/113”). The legal issue is the hotly debated question of whether and to what extent the sex of an insured person can be taken into account as a risk factor in the formulation of private contracts in insurance and related financial services.

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.

Kücükdeveci: Mangold Revisited – Horizontal Direct Effect of a General Principle of EU Law: Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) Judgment of 19 January 2010, Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam de Mol
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
National Court ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 22 November 2005 the European Court of Justice (hereafter, the Court) rendered its Mangold-ruling on Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (hereafter, Directive 2000/78). The most striking part of this judgment, rendered in a private dispute, was the following conclusion:Community law and, more particularly, Article 6(1) of (…) Directive 2000/78/EC (…) must be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law such as that at issue in the main proceedings (…) It is the responsibility of the national court to guarantee the full effectiveness of the general principle of non-discrimination in respect of age, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with Community law, even where the period prescribed for transposition of that directive has not yet expired.The judgment evoked a great amount of criticism from the media, academia, several advocates general and the member states.

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.

13. Part-Time and Fixed-Term Work

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cabrelli
Keyword(s):  
Working Hours ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Social Responsibilities ◽  
Treatment Regimes ◽  
Cost Efficiencies ◽  
Time Work ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Low Pay ◽  
Part Time Work

This chapter examines the policies that have been adopted to strike a balance between the twin objectives of labour market flexibility and enhanced job quality in the context of the regulation of part-time work and fixed-term work. It discusses the benefits and drawbacks of part-time and fixed-term working: for workers the flexibility which accompanies such positions can enable them to secure working hours that are tailored around their domestic and social responsibilities; however, such work often comes at a cost in terms of low pay, low status, and insecurity. These working patterns are attractive to employers as they generate cost efficiencies. The chapter evaluates the equal treatment regimes contained in the Part-Time Workers Regulations and the Fixed-Term Employees Regulations. In so doing, it addresses the Framework Agreement and Directive on Part-time Work and the Agreement on Fixed-term Work and the Fixed-term Work Directive.

Compulsory Military Service and Equal Treatment of Men and Women – Recent Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice (Alexander Dory v. Germany)

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Raible
Keyword(s):  
Military Service ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Compulsory Military Service ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided, in the case Tanja Kreil v. Germany, that Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (equal treatment directive) precludes the application of national provisions, such as those of German law, which impose a general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of arms. The ECJ found that such policies violated the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. Since this ruling both the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) and the ECJ have had to confront the question whether the German system of compulsory military service for men is compatible with Article 3.2 and 3.3 of the Grundgesetz (GG – German Basic Law) and the equal treatment directive.

In Search of a Standard: References to the Rule of Law in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Structured Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.

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.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document