6 The Court of Justice as a Labour Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 145-175
Author(s):  
ACL Davies

AbstractMany legal systems have specialist labour courts with jurisdiction over individual employment disputes or collective labour disputes or both. The literature identifies a number of possible justifications for the use of specialist labour courts. This chapter will engage in a critical examination of this literature in order to develop a framework for analysing the performance of courts (whether specialist or otherwise) in deciding labour law cases. We shall then apply that framework to some of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 145-175
Author(s):  
ACL Davies

AbstractMany legal systems have specialist labour courts with jurisdiction over individual employment disputes or collective labour disputes or both. The literature identifies a number of possible justifications for the use of specialist labour courts. This chapter will engage in a critical examination of this literature in order to develop a framework for analysing the performance of courts (whether specialist or otherwise) in deciding labour law cases. We shall then apply that framework to some of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-361
Author(s):  
Adam Sagan

The paper discusses the concept of the term worker in European labour law, focusing on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Matzak case. First, the facts that are essential to Mr Matzak’s qualification as a worker are presented. In a second step, the part of the Court’s decision which refers to the concept of ‘worker’ is analysed. The third and main part deals in detail with the current discussion of the concept of the term ‘worker’ in EU law. This analysis should make it possible to systemise the decisions of the Court. Finally, an attempt is made to classify the decision of the Court in the Matzak within its own case law and to assess its consequences for future decisions.


Pro Futuro ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Márton Leó Zaccaria

This paper is built around the workers’ fundamental right to take collective action and collective bargaining. Although, this right is firmly embedded in the majority of labour law systems in the social policy (meaning labour law, too) of the European Union, it is worth analysing it separately with an independent meaning. We can approach this right from the fundamental rights, the fundamental treaties or from certain directives, so we can find several questions that are difficult to answer properly. These problems are mostly catalysed by the necessary collision between the need for socially motivated legal protection and the fundamental economic freedoms. In my research, I analyse this right – along with some other connected ones – with the help of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Pillar of Social Rights because the latter highlights the holistic approach in the current reforms of EU social policy.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hana Kováčiková ◽  

To exclude or not to exclude? A question asked by many contracting authorities when assessing bids submitted by tenderers, whose reliability might be compromised by their previous misbehaviour or even worst – a criminal offence. According to law, contracting authorities can exclude such tenderers. However, at the same time, tenderers should be allowed to adopt compliance measures aimed at remedying the consequences of their action. In this article the author analyses some aspects of discretional exclusion of tenderers with doubted reliability in the public procurement process according to the 2014 European Union´s Public Procurement Directive and the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.


2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.


ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-41
Author(s):  
Maurizio Arcari ◽  
Stefania Ninatti

Abstract Constitutionalization is a peculiar process which characterizes the whole fabric of modern international law. It may however display different levels of evolution and different implications when distinct legal sub-systems are considered: this appears to be especially true at the European level, in particular in the context of the European Union law and of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at unveiling the key elements of the constitutionalization process as developed by the judges sitting in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. In their relevant case law, both the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have identified the core concepts and elements lying behind the constitutionalization of their respective legal systems. The analysis of the ECJ and ECtHR case law will be divided into two different parts dealing with the internal dimension from one side, and external one from the other side. While presenting nuances and implications that are linked to the diverse degree of integration of the two legal systems, it may be submitted that the core elements of constitutionalization depicted by the Luxembourg and Strasbourg judges reveal some common patterns.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-310
Author(s):  
Caroline de la Porte ◽  
Patrick Emmenegger

While fixed-term work benefits employers and increases the prospects of employability of various categories of workers, it is inherently precarious. The European Union (EU) directive on fixed-term work emphasizes the importance of equal treatment of workers on fixed-term contracts with comparable permanent workers and aims to prevent abuse of this contract form. Surprisingly, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings in this area have by and large been neglected in comparative labour market research. We fill this gap by systematically analysing the CJEU case law concerning fixed-term work and connecting it to the literatures on labour market dualization and Europeanization of labour law. We develop an analytical framework to analyse the Europeanization of labour law, which we then use to analyse the directive and the case law regarding the directive on fixed-term work. Our findings show that the equal treatment is affirmed in all cases under analysis for different provisions of labour contracts. With regard to abuse of recourse to fixed-term contracts, by contrast, the rulings still represent a zone of legal uncertainty, whereby some judgments allow for fixed-term contracts, such as for social policy purposes, while others prohibit their use. We therefore conclude that the CJEU does not put a brake on labour market dualization, but it does insist on equal treatment of workers, regardless of their contractual arrangements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document