DOCSLIB.ORG

Flash Reports on Labour Law October 2020 Summary and Country Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flash Reports on Labour Law October 2020 Summary and Country Reports Flash Reports on Labour Law October 2020 Summary and country reports Written by The European Centre of Expertise (ECE), based on reports submitted by the Network of Labour Law Experts October 2020 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Contact: Marie LAGARRIGUE E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Flash Report 10/2020 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person/organisation acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of any information contained in this publication. This publication has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" (2014-2020). For further information please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2020 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 10/2020 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Gruber-Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Albena Velikova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Mette Soested Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Elina Soomets Finland Ulla Liukkunen France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Tamás Gyulavári Iceland Leifur Gunnarsson Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristīne Dupate Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Hanneke Bennaars Suzanne Kali Norway Marianne Jenum Hotvedt Alexander Næss Skjønberg Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Isabel Valente Dias Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Barbara Kresal Spain Joaquín García Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar Erik Sinander Flash Report 10/2020 United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Flash Report 10/2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1 Austria .......................................................................................................... 6 1 National Legislation ................................................................................... 6 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................ 6 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ....................................................................... 7 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................ 7 Belgium ......................................................................................................... 8 1 National Legislation ................................................................................... 8 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 10 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 10 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 12 Bulgaria ...................................................................................................... 13 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 13 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 13 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 13 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 14 Croatia ........................................................................................................ 15 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 15 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 15 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 16 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 16 Cyprus ......................................................................................................... 17 1 National legislation .................................................................................. 17 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 17 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 17 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 18 Czech Republic ............................................................................................ 19 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 19 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 23 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 24 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 24 Denmark ..................................................................................................... 25 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 25 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 26 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 26 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 28 Estonia ........................................................................................................ 29 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 29 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 29 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 29 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 29 Finland ........................................................................................................ 31 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 31 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 31 3 Implications of CJEU rulings ...................................................................... 33 4 Other relevant information ........................................................................ 33 Flash Report 10/2020 France ......................................................................................................... 34 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 34 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 34 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 36 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 37 Germany ..................................................................................................... 38 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 38 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 39 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings ..................................................................... 39 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 40 Greece ......................................................................................................... 42 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 42 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 42 3 Implications of CJEU Ruling ....................................................................... 42 4 Other Relevant Information ...................................................................... 43 Hungary ...................................................................................................... 44 1 National Legislation ................................................................................. 44 2 Court Rulings .......................................................................................... 44 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialization of the Republic of Bulgaria 2014 - 2020"
    Innovation strategy for smart specialization 2014-2020 Version 27.06.2017 INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR SMART SPECIALISATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 2014-2020 1 Innovation strategy for smart specialization 2014-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 11 The European Context........................................................................................................................................................ 11 National context..................................................................................................................................................................... 11 1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 13 1.1 General macroeconomic overview ...................................................................................................... 13 1.2. Business support policy ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.3. Foreign Direct Investments .................................................................................................................. 15 1.4. Sectoral specialization in manufacturing and services. ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria, 2016
    Inclusive Entrepreneurship Policies, Country Assessment Notes Bulgaria, 2016 Acknowledgements This note is part of a series of notes on country-level inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the European Commission. These notes provide an overview of current and planned policy actions and identify some actions that could be implemented to address gaps in the current support offering, or improve current offerings. This note was prepared by Dr. Kiril Todorov of the University of National and World Economy in Bulgaria. David Halabisky and Sandra Hannig of the Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Programme in the Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Local Development and Tourism of the OECD undertook additional drafting and editing of the note under the direction of Dr. Jonathan Potter, also of the LEED Programme. A steering group was consulted during the preparation of this note. The steering group included members of the public, private and non- governmental sectors. Much of the data contained in this note were prepared under the direction of Dr. Jonathan Levie of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. This note benefited from feedback and suggestions provided by Katarina Lindahl and Guy Lejeune of Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Legal notice This note was prepared by the LEED (Local Economic and Employment Development) Programme of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) with the financial support of the European Commission, Directorate- General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation of Ukrainian Law to EU Law
    Iryna Kravchuk Comparative Law Center at the Ministry of Justice. Basic Analysis. Approximation of Ukrainian Law to EU Law. Introduction. Following the declared European foreign policy vector, it is impossible, in fact, to avoid the process of adaptation in the internal legal policy of Ukraine. The approximation of Ukrainian law to the EU acquis communautaire is not only the instrument for deepening our economic cooperation with the European Union, but also the important measure to enhance further development of Ukraine in general. In the late 80-s, the Central and Eastern European countries voluntarily initiated the adaptation programs of their political, economic and legal orders to the ones of the European Community. It was unilateral initiative, without any legal obligations under international law. Hungary and Slovenia even before the Association Agreements had implemented the draft law examination procedures on its compliance with the EU legislation. Striving to pave its way to the European Union membership, Ukraine should initiate the adaptation process as soon as possible. Given basic analysis can not cover the full scope of adaptation problems, as a profound research paper can be written in any particular area. That is why I will try to point out the key problems of the implementation of state policy in this area and the ways of its improvement. We are not to forget the efficient successful experience of our neighbours, Poland and Slovakia, in their eurointegration aspirations, so the comparative method is used in analysis in order to enlighten the main tasks and challenges, which Ukraine could face on its way of adaptation.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to the CASE LAW of the European Court of Justice on Articles 49 Et Seq
    1 GUIDE TO THE CASE LAW Of the European Court of Justice on Articles 49 et seq. TFEU FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT European Commission 2 PREFACE The present guide forms part of a series of guides concerning the case law of the European Court of Justice. To date this series includes publications concerning Article 49 TFEU et seq. (Freedom of Establishment) and Article 56 TFEU et seq. (Freedom to Provide Services). A separate chapter in the guide concerning Article 56 TFEU is dedicated to the case law on Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market (Services Directive). The guides are produced and updated by the European Commission, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate-General. This guide, which concerns Article 49 TFEU, aims to present the cases in a practical way by gathering together the essential passages of the cases, thus making it possible to find all the relevant parts of the judgement without having to consult the complete text of the case. The structure of the guide, following recent case law, provides an approach to Article 49 intended to help not only academics, but also practitioners directly involved in dealing with infringements. In the 2015 Single Market Strategy1 and the accompanying Staff Working Document2, the Commission states the intention to engage in a more active enforcement policy. In this respect, the guides, by presenting the relevant case law in an organised way, aim to provide clarity on the legal interpretations given by the Court of fundamental notions, on the proportionality analysis and on the correct application of fundamental freedoms of the Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Potential Development for an Innovative Socio-Cultural Sphere
    Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía South-West University “Neofit Rilski” Bulgaria Faculty of Economics Department of Economics HUMAN POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INNOVATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL SPHERE Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria 2018 Colección Las lecturas de Amandamaria 2018 Human Potential Development for an Innovative Scio-Cultural Sphere South-West University “Neofit Rilski”. Faculty of Economic. Departament of Economic. Bulgaria ISBN: 978-956-9817-24-3 Primera Edición Diciembre de 2018 Portada y Contraportada con South-West University “Neofit Rilski” Cuadernos de Sofía Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía en Alianza con South-West University “Neofit Rilski”. Faculty of Economic. Departament of Economic. Bulgaria www.cuadernosdesofia.com Referencia del libro: South-West University “Neofit Rilski”. Faculty of Economic. Departament of Economic. Bulgaria (Editor). (2018). Human Potential Development for an Innovative Scio-Cultural Sphere. Cuadernos de Sofía, Santiago, Chile. HUMAN POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INNOVATIVE SOCIO-CULTURAL SPHERE CONTENTS Introduction 10 Chapter one Problem Outlining – historical, legal, theoretical and methodological aspects 11 1.1. Chief Assist. Prof. Dr. Petar Parvanov Essential Human Potential Development Consepts 11 1.2. Chief Assist. Prof. Dr. Vladislav Krustev The Influence of Conflict of Interests on the Development of Human Potential 16 1.3. Chief Assist. Prof. Dr. Cvetomir Cvetkov Macroeconomic Environment for Human Potential Development in Bulgaria 25 Chapter two: Interaction between the Human Potential and the Socio-Cultural Sphere 38 2.1. Assist. Prof. Dr. Irina Atanasova, Chief Assist. Prof. Dr. Stanka Rinkova Formation and Consumption of Human Potential in the Context of Economic Sociodynamics 38 2.2. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Temenuzhka Karolova Hromi Zhigalova Information Necessities and Innovation Processes of the Socio-Cultural Sphere and Human Potential Establishment 54 2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Law Working Papers
    Stanford – Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum A joint initiative of Stanford Law School and the University of Vienna School of Law European Union Law Working Papers No. 1 Style or Substance? An Analysis of the Major Reforms to CFSP by the Treaty of Lisbon Michael J. Austin 2011 European Union Law Working Papers edited by Siegfried Fina and Roland Vogl About the European Union Law Working Papers The European Union Law Working Paper Series presents research on the law and policy of the European Union. The objective of the European Union Law Working Paper Series is to share “work in progress”. The authors of the papers are solely responsible for the content of their contributions. The working papers can be found at http://ttlf.stanford.edu. The European Union Law Working Paper Series is a joint initiative of Stanford Law School, Stanford University’s Europe Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the University of Vienna School of Law’s LLM Program in European and International Business Law. If you should have any questions regarding the European Union Law Working Paper Series, please contact Professor Dr. Siegfried Fina, Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law, or Dr. Roland Vogl, Executive Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, at the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum http://ttlf.stanford.edu Stanford Law School University of Vienna School of Law Crown Quadrangle Department of Business Law 559 Nathan Abbott Way Schottenbastei 10-16 Stanford, CA 94305-8610 1010 Vienna, Austria About the Author Michael Austin graduated from Stanford Law School in June 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex I -An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights
    An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Annex I -An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights AN EU MECHANISM ON DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Annex I - An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Abstract This Research Paper provides an overview of the existing EU mechanisms which aim to guarantee democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the EU itself, as set in Article 2 TEU. It analyses the scope of these mechanisms, the role of EU institutions and other relevant actors, and identifies gaps and shortcomings in the current framework. The Research Paper also includes illustrative case-studies on several key challenges, including the limits of infringement actions in addressing the threats to judicial independence in Hungary; the shortcomings of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in Bulgaria; and the consequences of a weak fundamental rights proofing of the Data Retention Directive. The Research Paper briefly examines the monitoring mechanisms existing at international level, including the UN and the Council of Europe before considering how the EU institutions interact to protect and promote Article 2 TEU values and the role of national authorities and individuals in fulfilling this objective. An analysis of the impact of the gaps and shortcomings identified in this Research Paper is also offered, with a particular focus on the principle of mutual trust, socio-economic development and fundamental rights protection. The impact on mutual trust is discussed in an illustrative case-study on the consequences of the unequal enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant framework decision.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU Concept of the Rule of Law and the Procedures De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda for Its Protection
    ICLR, 2019, Vol. 19, No. 2. The EU Concept of the Rule of Law and the Procedures de lege lata and de lege ferenda for its Protection Naděžda Šišková Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in EU Law, Faculty of Law, Palacky University, Czech Republic [email protected] ŠIŠKOVÁ, Naděžda. The EU Concept of the Rule of Law and the Procedures de lege lata and de lege ferenda for its Protection. International and Comparative Law Review, 2019, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 116–130. DOI: 10.2478/iclr-2019-0017. Summary: The article is dealing with the EU current and future intruments for the protection of the rule of law principles at the level of the European Union. The begin- ning is dedicated to the EU concept of the rule of law as an integral part of the Common European values and its significant for the smooth functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice. The substantial part of the study is focusing of the analysis of differ- ent procedures (infringement, political and administrative), which can be used for the protection of the rule of law principles, including highlighting their certain peculiarities and the limits. The end of the article contains the conclusions about future prospects. Keywords: Common European values, rule of law principles, infringement procedure (art. 258 TFEU), political procedure (art. 7 TEU), new framework for strengthen the rule of law, European Court of the EU 1 Introductory remarks The European Union‘s concept of the rule of law occupies a central and a key position among the common European values (Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law November 2019 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Reports on Labour Law November 2019 Summary and country reports Written by The European Centre of Expertise (ECE), based on reports submitted by the Network of Labour Law Experts November 2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Contact: Marie LAGUARRIGUE E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Flash Report 11/2019 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person/organisation acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of any information contained in this publication. This publication has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" (2014-2020). For further information please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2019 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Research BOSTON COLLEGE LAW LIBRARY
    LEGAL RESEARCH GUIDE #9 European Union Research BOSTON COLLEGE LAW LIBRARY INTRODUCTION Post-World War II Europe The European Union has its origins in the period following the end of World War II in 1945. Faced with political and economic uncertainty, many nations in western Europe began to consider the possibilities of increased cooperation as a means of improving economic performance and providing increased security. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation was created in 1948 as a multinational agency to assist in the administration of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of western Europe. Further multinational cooperation was fostered by the Council of Europe, a consultative organization established in 1949 to promote common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters. Beginnings of a Common Market The evolution of the European Union itself began in 1951 with the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (“ECSC”), 261 UNTS 140 (1951). This treaty provided a “common market” for the coal and steel industries of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, with regulations for pricing, transportation, competition, employment, and the abolition of subsidies. When the ECSC proved successful, attention focused on the creation of a “common market” for other sectors of the economy and for further economic integration. Ministers of the six ECSC countries negotiated and concluded two treaties, signed at Rome in March, 1957. The Treaty of Rome, 298 UNTS 11 (1957), established the European Economic Community and the EURATOM Treaty, 298 UNTS 167 (1957), created the European Atomic Energy Community. Both of these organizations officially came into existence on January 1, 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19 Impact on Roma
    Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities Country: Bulgaria Date: 15 June 2020 Contractor’s name: Project One / Center for the Study of Democracy DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under contract as background material for comparative analysis by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the project ‘Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities ‘. The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA. The document is made publicly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. 1 Contents 1 Specific implications of the general measures taken to stop the COVID- 19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers’ communities? ............................................ 3 1.1 Type of measures ................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Implications of measures .................................................................................. 5 1.3 Estimates of the scale of the impact ............................................................. 7 2 Specific measures to address the implications of the pandemic on Roma and Travellers ........................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Measures to tackle the spread of the virus specifically among Roma and Travellers communities ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring the Implementation of EU Law: Tools and Challenges
    1. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS PETITIONS Monitoring the implementation of EU law: tools and challenges STUDY Abstract This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the PETI Committee. The paper presents the evolution of the EU enforcement policy as part of the principle of rule of law in the European Union. It provides information on the main actors responsible for the implementation and enforcement of EU law and trends related to the transposition and application of European legislative acts according to the latest information available. Finally, it browses through the different measures within the EU enforcement policy, including the recent developments regarding the use of EU Pilot tool. PE 596 799 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions and commissioned, supervised and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, or to subscribe to its newsletter, please write to: [email protected] Research Administrator Responsible Giorgio MUSSA Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHOR Ms Marta Ballesteros, Senior Lawyer and Consultant LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript completed in November 2017.
    [Show full text]