DOCSLIB.ORG

Flash Reports on Labour Law August 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 August 2020 Summary and Country Reports Flash Reports on Labour Law August 2020 Summary and country reports Written by The European Centre of Expertise (ECE), based on reports submitted by the Network of Labour Law Experts August 2020 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 08/2020 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 08/2020 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Albena Velikova-Stoyanova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Mette Soested Estonia Gaabriel Tavits 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 Kristine 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 United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Flash Report 08/2020 Flash Report 08/2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 9 Austria ............................................................................................................14 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................14 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................14 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................16 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................16 Belgium ...........................................................................................................17 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................17 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................17 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................17 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................18 Bulgaria ..........................................................................................................19 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................19 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................19 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................19 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................19 Croatia ............................................................................................................20 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................20 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................20 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................20 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................20 Cyprus ............................................................................................................22 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................22 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................22 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................22 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................24 Czech Republic .................................................................................................25 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................25 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................29 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................31 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................31 Denmark .........................................................................................................32 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................32 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................33 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................35 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................35 Estonia ............................................................................................................36 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................36 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................36 Flash Report 08/2020 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................36 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................36 Finland ............................................................................................................38 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................38 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................38 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................39 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................39 France .............................................................................................................40 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................40 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................41 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................41 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................42 Germany .........................................................................................................43 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................43 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................43 43 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................45 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................46 Greece ............................................................................................................47 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................47 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................47 3 Implications of CJEU Ruling ........................................................................47 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................47 Hungary ..........................................................................................................48 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................48 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................48
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 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 document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Presiding Judge in Superior Court District and Limited Jurisdiction Court District
    GR 29 PRESIDING JUDGE IN SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT AND LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT DISTRICT (a) Election, Term, Vacancies, Removal and Selection Criteria--Multiple Judge Courts. (1) Election . Each superior court district and each limited jurisdiction court district (including municipalities operating municipal courts) having more than one judge shall establish a procedure, by local court rule, for election, by the judges of the district, of a Presiding Judge, who shall supervise the judicial business of the district. In the same manner, the judges shall elect an Assistant Presiding Judge of the district who shall serve as Acting Presiding Judge during the absence or upon the request of the Presiding Judge and who shall perform such further duties as the Presiding Judge, the Executive Committee, if any, or the majority of the judges shall direct. If the judges of a district fail or refuse to elect a Presiding Judge, the Supreme Court shall appoint the Presiding Judge and Assistant Presiding Judge. (2) Term . The Presiding Judge shall be elected for a term of not less than two years, subject to reelection. The term of the Presiding Judge shall commence on January 1 of the year in which the Presiding Judge’s term begins. (3) Vacancies . Interim vacancies of the office of Presiding Judge or Acting Presiding Judge shall be filled as provided in the local court rule in (a)(1). (4) Removal . The Presiding Judge may be removed by a majority vote of the judges of the district unless otherwise provided by local court rule. (5) Selection Criteria . Selection of a Presiding Judge should be based on the judge’s 1) management and administrative ability, 2) interest in serving in the position, 3) experience and familiarity with a variety of trial court assignments, and 4) ability to motivate and educate other judicial officers and court personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Commdh(2005)10 Original Version
    OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS _______________ BUREAU DU COMMISSAIRE AUX DROITS DE L´HOMME Strasbourg, 14 December 2005 CommDH(2005)10 Original version REPORT BY Mr. ALVARO GIL-ROBLES, COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ON HIS VISIT TO THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND 4 - 6 JULY 2005 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly CommDH(2005)10 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................................4 1. JUDICIARY ....................................................................................................................5 2. PRISON SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................7 3. PRE-TRIAL DETENTION............................................................................................8 4. HUMAN RIGHTS STRUCTURES.............................................................................10 5. TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS..........................................................................12 6. INTEGRATION OF FOREIGNERS.................................................................................14 7. GENDER EQUALITY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ....................................16 8. NON-DISCRIMINATION..................................................................................................18 9. TRAFFICKING
    [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]
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?
    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
    [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]
  • Federal Law, Federal Courts, and Binding and Persuasive Authority
    1 Federal Law, Federal Courts, and Binding and Persuasive Authority © 2013 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. The United States is a common law jurisdiction. Common law countries generally give significant weight to prior judicial opinions. By adhering to the outcomes relating to questions of law of prior decisions, common law judges build a body of jurisprudence that, hopefully, leads to consistent and predictable outcomes. In this way, adherence to binding or persuasive judicial opinions, serves the same purpose as stare decisis: “[The] promot[ion of] the evenhanded, 2 predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Not all prior opinions are created equal, however. Sometimes prior decisions are binding on courts; courts must follow these binding precedents. In other instances, prior decisions are 3 only persuasive; they provide good rules of thumb, but do not necessarily dictate the result. Whether a case is binding or persuasive can make all of the difference. As such, this handout will first describe the various relationships of federal courts with other federal courts and how that affects whether law is binding or persuasive. This will teach the legal writer when to recognize whether certain case law is binding or not. Second, this handout will briefly explain different ways to deal with binding precedent. This will teach the legal writer how to work around seemingly binding precedent that undermines the proposition that the legal writer is attempting to establish. Binding Law and Federal Courts The System To understand when an interpretation of law is binding and when it is not in federal court, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the federal court system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Justice of the European Union
    THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the EU’s seven institutions. It consists of two courts of law: the Court of Justice proper and the General Court. It is responsible for the jurisdiction of the European Union. The courts ensure the correct interpretation and application of primary and secondary EU law in the EU. They review the legality of acts of the EU institutions and decide whether Member States have fulfilled their obligations under primary and secondary law. The Court of Justice also provides interpretations of EU law when so requested by national judges. COURT OF JUSTICE A. Legal basis — Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 251 to 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 136 of the Euratom Treaty, and Protocol No 3 annexed to the Treaties on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Statute’); — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; — EU Budget (Section 4). B. Composition and Statute 1. Membership a. Number of members (Article 19 of the TEU and Article 252 of the TFEU) One judge per Member State (27). The Court is assisted by eight advocates-general, whose number may be increased by the Council if the Court so requests. The judges of the Court of Justice elect from among themselves a President and a Vice-President for a renewable term of three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson: What It Takes to Become a Judge Objective
    Courts in the Community Colorado Judicial Branch Office of the State Court Administrator Updated November 2020 Lesson: What it takes to become a Judge Objective: Students know how power, authority, and responsibility are distributed, shared, and limited in the Colorado judicial system. (Colorado Model Content Standards: Civics, Standard 2.2, grades 9-12) Activities: Teacher lecture (background material and lecture outline provided); class participation activity; and homework assignment. Outcomes: Students develop an understanding of how judges became judges, what criteria qualified them for the job, and what attributes they must have to maintain their positions. Grade Level: Grades 9-12 Anticipated classroom time: 45-60 minutes Message from former Court of Appeals Judge Daniel M. Taubman: Although there are about 37,000 licensed lawyers in Colorado, there are only about 390 judges. Thus, only a very small percentage of lawyers have the opportunity to serve the citizens of the State of Colorado as a judge. In almost all cases, a person must be a Colorado lawyer before becoming a judge (in some rural areas, a non-lawyer may serve as a county court judge). Whether for county court, district court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, or the Colorado Supreme Court, a judicial applicant must apply to a nominating commission that reviews his or her qualifications. Typically, the nominating commission makes three recommendations to the governor, who then appoints one of the nominees to serve as a judge. Both the nominating commission and the governor look to certain traits in order to find well-qualified judges. Among the primary criteria are open-mindedness, fairness, and lack of bias.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling the Police: the Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions
    Michigan Law Review Volume 63 Issue 6 1965 Controlling the Police: The Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions Wayne R. LaFave University of Illinois Frank J. Remington University of Wisconsin Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Evidence Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation Wayne R. LaFave & Frank J. Remington, Controlling the Police: The Judge's Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions, 63 MICH. L. REV. 987 (1965). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol63/iss6/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTROLLING THE POUCE: THE JUDGE'S ROLE IN MAKING AND REVIEWING LAW ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS Wayne R. LaFave* and Frank ]. Remington** N the administration of criminal justice, the judiciary currently I carries an important responsibility for the fair, effective, and effi­ cient operation of the system. "Plainly, there is no stage of that administration about which judges may say it is not their concem."1 Moreover, as Mr. Justice Brennan recently observed, "the judicial supervisory role, like other aspects of legal regulation, is changing, and the trend certainly is one toward enlargement."2 Because this is so, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the re­ lationship between the judge and the police in the development and implementation of law enforcement policies and practices.
    [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]