The new EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the context of new forms of employment

The article examines the reach, protective effects and limitations of the recently adopted European Union (EU) Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions. After explaining the need for a new instrument, the article analyses the Directive’s protective provisions. Cases of the European Court of Justice are presented to provide the wider context and explain how the EU social acquis impacts upon the implementation of the Directive. Finally, new developments in the EU labour and social field are discussed, making recommendations of possible avenues for providing protection to a larger category of workers.

Die Nacherfüllung aus Verkäufersicht

The thesis examines the question of which of the compared sales law systems is most likely to realize the (economic) interests of the seller in connection with the consumer’s claim for specific performance, which is characterized by a high level of consumer protection. In this respect, the thesis examines 7 different complexes - from the position of specific performance in the system of purchase warranty rights to the scope of specific performance owed and the objection of disproportionality. Dogmatic focal points are, for example, the problem of self-execution in the light of European Union law and the allocation of certain damage items to specific performance or to damage claims in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice.

The myth of associative discrimination and the Court of Justice’s great vanishing act: part 2

This article complements an article (part 1) recently published in this journal (72(1) NILQ 29–60) contending that the notion of associative discrimination as a term of art renders it so vulnerable to manipulation that it can be used to narrow the scope of the legislation. That argument was rooted in the UK Supreme Court’s reasoning in Lee v Ashers Bakery [2018] UKSC 49. Part 2 continues the theme, but this time to show that the vulnerability can work the other way, producing, first, an ‘extended’ notion of associative discrimination and, second, radically broad notions of direct and indirect discrimination. This limb of the thesis also argues that a case heralded as one of associative discrimination, CHEZ [2016] CMLR 14, was no such thing. It concludes that the ambitious approach of the European Court of Justice and its Advocates General will blur the traditional form-based distinction between direct and indirect discrimination.

Case C-181/19, Jobcenter Krefeld: The End of the Union Citizenship as Previously Understood?

The European Court of Justice has taken a restrictive approach vis-à-vis economically inactive Union citizens ever since its rulings Brey and Dano. In a recent preliminary ruling, Case C-181/19 Jobcenter Krefeld, the Court confirms this approach with regard to social security benefits that resemble social assistance. Such benefits fall, just as the Court in held in Brey and Dano, under the Citizenship Directive and can be made dependent upon a right to reside. Thereby, the Court holds that the Citizenship Directive overrule Regulation 883/2004, that coordinates social security benefits, and its equal treatment principle which rule out additional residence requirements. However, the Court clarifies that if there is a right to reside on basis of Regulation 492/2011, such a right overrides the more restrictive right to reside that follows from the Citizenship Directive. Different standards seem to apply to economically active Union citizens and economically inactive Union citizens. Challenges lie ahead for the Member States' administrations as different authorities apply the respective Union law instruments.

Fulfillment of the Conditions of Law no. 302/2004 on the European Arrest Warrant

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework “Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did”. Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: “from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure” (European Court of Justice, 2016).

The Judicial Control of a Cross-Border Merger approved by means of an abusive resolution

The fight for the control of the Mediaset group has given rise to several judicial decisions issued in various national jurisdictions and even by the European Court of Justice. Three orders of Spanish Courts have been of particular interest. Two of them were issued by a Commercial Court in Madrid and the third one was issued on appeal by the Provincial Appeal Court Madrid. They instructed the suspension of the shareholders meeting resolutions of the Spanish Mediaset company approving a cross-border merger. The content of this resolution was to approve the acquisition of the Spanish company by another company domiciled in the Netherlands thus changing the applicable law. The resolution approving the merger was presumed (provisionally) to be abusive and, eventually, null and void. The decisions of the Spanish Court were grounded on the fact that the articles of association of the resulting Dutch company would be detrimental to the minority in the Spanish company. This limits the freedom of establishment (Art. 49 TFEU) and is based on a multilevel scrutiny, resulting from the national laws applicable to each company that participates in the merger. Those judicial decisions handled with other issues of interest in company law, such as the conclusive effect of the registration of a cross-border merger, the legitimation of the minority to challenge shareholders resolutions, or the effects of a shareholders meeting resolution replacing a previous merger resolution that has been challenged before the courts.

The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Law and Policy

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.