DOCSLIB.ORG

Flash Reports on Labour Law February 2021 Summary and Country Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flash Reports on Labour Law February 2021 Summary and Country Reports Flash Reports on Labour Law February 2021 Summary and country reports Written by The European Centre of Expertise (ECE), based on reports submitted by the Network of Labour Law Experts February 2021 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 02/2021 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, 2021 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2021 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 02/2021 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 02/2021 United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Flash Report 02/2021 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1 Austria ............................................................................................................ 7 1 National Legislation .................................................................................... 8 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................. 9 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................12 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................13 Belgium .........................................................................................................14 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................14 2 National Court Rulings ................................................................................15 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................16 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................17 Bulgaria .........................................................................................................18 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................18 2 National Court Rulings ................................................................................18 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................18 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................19 Croatia ...........................................................................................................20 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................20 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................20 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................21 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................22 Cyprus ...........................................................................................................23 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................23 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................24 3 Implication of CJEU Rulings.........................................................................24 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................28 Czech Republic ..............................................................................................29 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................29 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................33 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................33 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................34 Denmark ........................................................................................................35 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................35 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................35 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................37 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................38 Estonia ..........................................................................................................39 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................39 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................40 Flash Report 02/2021 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................40 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................41 Finland ..........................................................................................................42 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................42 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................43 3 Implications of CJEU rulings ........................................................................43 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................44 France ...........................................................................................................45 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................45 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................46 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................48 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................50 Germany ........................................................................................................51 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................51 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................51 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings .......................................................................51 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................52 Greece ...........................................................................................................53 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................53 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................53 3 Implications of CJEU rulings ........................................................................53 4 Other relevant information .........................................................................54 Hungary .........................................................................................................55 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................55 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................55
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fundamentals of Constitutional Courts
    Constitution Brief April 2017 Summary The Fundamentals of This Constitution Brief provides a basic guide to constitutional courts and the issues that they raise in constitution-building processes, and is Constitutional Courts intended for use by constitution-makers and other democratic actors and stakeholders in Myanmar. Andrew Harding About MyConstitution 1. What are constitutional courts? The MyConstitution project works towards a home-grown and well-informed constitutional A written constitution is generally intended to have specific and legally binding culture as an integral part of democratic transition effects on citizens’ rights and on political processes such as elections and legislative and sustainable peace in Myanmar. Based on procedure. This is not always true: in the People’s Republic of China, for example, demand, expert advisory services are provided it is clear that constitutional rights may not be enforced in courts of law and the to those involved in constitution-building efforts. constitution has only aspirational, not juridical, effects. This series of Constitution Briefs is produced as If a constitution is intended to be binding there must be some means of part of this effort. enforcing it by deciding when an act or decision is contrary to the constitution The MyConstitution project also provides and providing some remedy where this occurs. We call this process ‘constitutional opportunities for learning and dialogue on review’. Constitutions across the world have devised broadly two types of relevant constitutional issues based on the constitutional review, carried out either by a specialized constitutional court or history of Myanmar and comparative experience. by courts of general legal jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Confidentiality in Mediation: a Moral Reassessment
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1992 Issue 1 Article 5 1992 Confidentiality in Mediation: A Moral Reassessment Kevin Gibson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Gibson, Confidentiality in Mediation: A Moral Reassessment, 1992 J. Disp. Resol. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1992/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gibson: Gibson: Confidentiality in Mediation: A Moral Reassessment CONFIDENTIALITY IN MEDIATION: A MORAL REASSESSMENT Kevin Gibson* To whom you tell your secrets, to him you resign your liberty. Spanish Proverb I find the issue of confidentiality fascinating. When the Ethics Committee discussed confidentiality, we each had slightly different meanings. Labor mediators were most insistent on talking of confidentiality in absolute terms, but most flexible when it came to defining it. In the community field, confidentiality has so many facets. We have to break them down in our training sessions. The [Society of Professionalsin Dispute Resolution] standards address confidentiality as if we are all taking about the same thing when I think there are overt and subtle variations which need to be explored.' Albie Davis I. INTRODUCTION In maintaining client confidentiality, mediators may find a conflict between common morality and their role morality.
    [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]
  • Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (In a Constitutional Democracy)
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2013 Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy) Imer Flores Georgetown Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-161 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1115 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2156455 Imer Flores, Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy), in LAW, LIBERTY, AND THE RULE OF LAW 77-101 (Imer B. Flores & Kenneth E. Himma eds., Springer Netherlands 2013) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Chapter6 Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy) lmer B. Flores Tse-Kung asked, saying "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" K'ung1u-tzu said: "Is not reciprocity (i.e. 'shu') such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not ckJ to others." Confucius (2002, XV, 23, 225-226). 6.1 Introduction Taking the "rule of law" seriously implies readdressing and reassessing the claims that relate it to law and liberty, in general, and to a constitutional democracy, in particular. My argument is five-fold and has an addendum which intends to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western civilizations,
    [Show full text]
  • USA -V- Julian Assange Judgment
    JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Published Ethics Advisory Opinions (Guide, Vol. 2B, Ch
    Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt. B: Ethics Advisory Opinions Ch. 2: Published Advisory Opinions § 210 Index § 220 Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinions No. 2: Service on Governing Boards of Nonprofit Organizations No. 3: Participation in a Seminar of General Character No. 7: Service as Faculty Member of the National College of State Trial Judges No. 9: Testifying as a Character Witness No. 11: Disqualification Where Long-Time Friend or Friend’s Law Firm Is Counsel No. 17: Acceptance of Hospitality and Travel Expense Reimbursements From Lawyers No. 19: Membership in a Political Club No. 20: Disqualification Based on Stockholdings by Household Family Member No. 24: Financial Settlement and Disqualification on Resignation From Law Firm No. 26: Disqualification Based on Holding Insurance Policy from Company that is a Party No. 27: Disqualification Based on Spouse’s Interest as Beneficiary of a Trust from which Defendant Leases Property No. 28: Service as Officer or Trustee of Hospital or Hospital Association No. 29: Service as President or Director of a Corporation Operating a Cooperative Apartment or Condominium No. 32: Limited Solicitation of Funds for the Boy Scouts of America No. 33: Service as a Co-trustee of a Pension Trust No. 34: Service as Officer or on Governing Board of Bar Association No. 35: Solicitation of Funds for Nonprofit Organizations, Including Listing of Judges on Solicitation Materials No. 36: Commenting on Legal Issues Arising before the Governing Board of a Private College or University No. 37: Service as Officer or Trustee of a Professional Organization Receiving Governmental or Private Grants or Operating Funds No.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law of the United States, by Hugh Evander Willis
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 12 Issue 4 Article 15 4-1937 Constitutional Law of the United States, by Hugh Evander Willis Glenn D. Peters Member, Hammond Bar Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Peters, Glenn D. (1937) "Constitutional Law of the United States, by Hugh Evander Willis," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 12 : Iss. 4 , Article 15. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol12/iss4/15 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIAN. LAW JOURNAL BOOK REVIEW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, by Hugh Evander Willis. 1936. The Principia Press, Bloomington, Indiana. This reviewer has just finished a most interesting task, the critical reading of Dr. Willis' new book on the Constitutional Law of the United States. When one reads this book he is immediately struck with the tremendous amount of intelligent labor that has been bestowed upon it. Not only does the book evince h careful and critical study of hundreds of authorities, both State and Federal, but it also indicates a most careful analysis of political science, philosophy and psychology. Dr. Willis' approach to the subject of the Constitution is most enlightening. Having due regard to Mr. Justice Hughes' holding that the Constitution is what the judges say it is, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Issuance of a Third-Party Legal Opinion
    In My Opinion... Ethical Considerations of Third-Party Legal Opinions by Lydia C. Stefanowicz he issuance of a third-party legal opinion First, the client should consent to the issuance of as a condition to closing has become such a the legal opinion. That consent may be express, as, for T common practice in certain types of business example, pursuant to an engagement letter, or implied. transactions, most notably financing transactions, that NJRPC Rule 1.2(a) states that a lawyer may take such lawyers rarely stop to consider the ethical considerations action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized related to this practice. The third-party legal opinion is to carry out the representation. Thus, when a client an expression of a lawyer’s professional judgment on executes a financing commitment letter or an agreement the matters covered therein relating to his or her client that requires the delivery of a third-party legal opin- and the subject transaction, as of the date of the opinion ion as a condition of closing, the client has implicitly letter, for the benefit of the opinion recipient. Since the consented to the issuance of the third-party legal opin- opinion recipient is not the lawyer’s client, such an ion on its behalf by its counsel in that transaction. opinion letter is commonly known as a ‘third-party legal However, when a lawyer is engaged to act as local opinion.’ In an adversarial legal system such as ours, a counsel in a transaction primarily for the purpose of situation where an attorney has, among other duties, a issuing a legal opinion in its jurisdiction, the lawyer- duty of loyalty and care to his or her client, as well as client relationship may be remote.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism and Constitutional Criminal Law Brenner M
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 46 | Issue 2 Article 6 12-1-2017 Federalism and Constitutional Criminal Law Brenner M. Fissell Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fissell, Brenner M. (2017) "Federalism and Constitutional Criminal Law," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 46 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol46/iss2/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fissell: Federalism and Constitutional Criminal Law FEDERALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL LAW Brenner M. Fissell* I. INTRODUCTION Over the past fifty years, the Supreme Court has created an expansive and nearly comprehensive body of constitutional criminal procedure. These are the familiar rules about police investigation and fair trials. At the same time, though, the Court has repeatedly resisted doing the same for substantive criminal law and sentencing. It has generally avoided limiting what can be a crime, how it must be defined, and how much it can be punished. As William Stuntz concluded, while "policing and the trial process" have been "aggressively" regulated, "substantive criminal law" has been essentially left "to the politicians."' It takes an entire law school course to read just the highlights of the search and seizure cases; with respect to what can be a crime and how it must be defined, though, "constitutional law places few limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Labour & Employment 2020
    Labour & Employment 2020 Contributing editors Matthew Howse, Sabine Smith-Vidal, Walter Ahrens, K Lesli Ligorner and Mark Zelek © Law Business Research 2020 Publisher Tom Barnes [email protected] Subscriptions Claire Bagnall Labour & [email protected] Senior business development manager Adam Sargent Employment [email protected] Published by Law Business Research Ltd Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street 2020 London, EC4A 4HL, UK The information provided in this publication Contributing editors is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always Matthew Howse, Sabine Smith-Vidal, Walter Ahrens, be sought before taking any legal action K Lesli Ligorner and Mark Zelek based on the information provided. This information is not intended to create, nor Morgan Lewis does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer– client relationship. The publishers and authors accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. The information provided was verified between March and May 2020. Be advised that this is Lexology Getting The Deal Through is delighted to publish the fifteenth edition of Labour & a developing area. Employment, which is available in print and online at www.lexology.com/gtdt. Lexology Getting The Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of © Law Business Research Ltd 2020 law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company No photocopying without a CLA licence. directors and officers. First published 2006 Throughout this edition, and following the unique Lexology Getting The Deal Through Fifteenth edition format, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the jurisdictions ISBN 978-1-83862-357-9 featured.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on MEASURES to COMBAT DISCRIMINATION Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC
    European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field REPORT ON MEASURES TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC COUNTRY REPORT 2013 ICELAND Guðrún D. Guðmundsdóttir State of affairs up to 1st January 2014 This report has been drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-discrimination Field (on the grounds of Race or Ethnic Origin, Age, Disability, Religion or Belief and Sexual Orientation), established and managed by: Human European Consultancy Migration Policy Group Maliestraat 7 Rue Belliard 205, Box 1 3581 SH Utrecht 1040 Brussels Netherlands Belgium Tel +31 30 634 14 22 Tel +32 2 230 5930 Fax +31 30 635 21 39 Fax +32 2 280 0925 [email protected] [email protected] www.humanconsultancy.com www.migpolgroup.com All reports are available on the website of the European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field: http://www.non-discrimination.net/law/national-legislation/country-reports-measures- combat-discrimination This report has been drafted as part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States, funded by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013). The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the European Commission. European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3 0.1 The national legal system ........................................................................... 3 0.2 Overview/State of implementation .............................................................. 4 0.3 Case-law ..................................................................................................... 5 1 GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 9 2 THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Opinions: Sample Opinion Letter No. 3: Commercial
    LEGAL OPINIONS: SAMPLE OPINION LETTER NO. 3: GOMMERGIAL The $olicitors' Legal Opinions Gommittee was constituted for the purpose of reviewing materials previously published with respect to solicitors' opinions and preparing guides for the assistance of the profession, The menbers of our Gommittee at this time are: Sandra D. Sutherland, Q.G. (Ghair) Nicolaas Blom of McGarthy Tetrault LLP Paul D, Bradley of Lawson Lundell Hamish G. Gameron, Q,G. of Bull, Housser & Tupper Mitchell H. Gropper, Q.G. of Farris Vaughan Wills & Murphy Donald J. Haslam of Kornfeld Mackoff Silber Jacqueline Kelly of Davis & Gompany John O.E. Lundell of Lawson Lundell Mitchell McGormick of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP lain Mant of Gampney & Murphy John Morrison of Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw Robert Shouldice of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Anne M. $tewart, Q,G. of Blake, Gassels & Graydon LLP David A. Zacks of Fraser Milner LLP Earlier Statements Our Gommittee has issued five earlier Statements concerning legal opinions, Those $tatements are listed under ltenr 'l under the heading "Reference Materials" included at the end of this Statement. Our Gommiftee has reviewed the five earlier Statementsn and confirms the principles set out therein. Our Gommittee continues to concur with the general practice that opinions from solicitorc for borrowers as to the validity, legality, binding effect or enforceability of standard form security documents are neither requested nor given except in unusual circumstances. This matter is set out in more detail, along with some examples
    [Show full text]