Decisions: Темелни права - Солидарност

Categories

 C-233/20 - job-medium

  •  25 November 2021
  •  ECLI:  ECLI:EU:C:2021:960
  •  EU
  •  Court
  •  Court decision

In a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Supreme Court of Austria asked the ECJ if a provision of national law under which no allowance in lieu of paid annual leave is payable in respect of the current last working year, where the worker unilaterally terminates (“withdraws from”) the employment relationship early without cause, is compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and if the answer is negative, if it is necessary to verify additionally if the worker was unable to use up his or her annual leave. ECJ responded that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause. It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled.

More

 C-350/20 - INPS () and de maternité pour les titulaires de permis unique)

  •  02 September 2021
  •  ECLI:  ECLI:EU:C:2021:659
  •  EU
  •  Court
  •  Court decision

In a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Constitutional Court of Italy asked the ECJ if Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is applied to childbirth and maternity allowances and is EU law therefore to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which fails to extend the abovementioned benefits, which are already granted to foreign nationals holding a long-term resident’s EU residence permit, to foreign nationals who hold a single permit under that directive. ECJ responded that under Article 34(1) of the Charter, the EU recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by EU law and national laws and practices. In addition, under Article 34(2) of the Charter, everyone residing and moving legally within the EU is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with EU law and national laws and practices. Thus, national legislation which excludes third-country nationals from entitlement to a childbirth allowance and a maternity allowance provided for by that legislation is precluded.

More

 C-28/20 - Airhelp

  •  23 March 2021
  •  ECLI:  ECLI:EU:C:2021:226
  •  EU
  •  Court
  •  Court decision

The request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Attunda District Court of Sweden asked the ECJ if a strike by airline pilots who are employed by an air carrier and who are needed to carry out a flight constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. ECJ responded that the right to take collective action, including strike action, is a fundamental right laid down in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that right is protected in accordance with EU law and national laws and practices, hence the fact that workers invoked the right to strike and consequently launched strike action must be regarded as foreseeable for any employer, in particular where notice of the strike is given. Finally, ECJ interpreted Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 as meaning that strike action which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier, in compliance with the conditions laid down by national legislation, in particular the notice period imposed by it, which is intended to assert the demands of that carrier’s workers and which is followed by a category of staff essential for operating a flight does not fall within the concept of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.

More