header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 June 2008 / Katherine Apps
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Features , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Major impact

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Katherine Apps considers the practical effect Impact v Maff could have on employment cases

It is rare that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) hands down judgment in a case which runs through almost all of the general principles of EC law in; C 268/06 Impact v Ministry of Agriculture and Food [2008] ECR I-nyr (Impact) is such a case. Impact is both:

  •   
    (i)     an example of the application of the key principles of EC law in an employment tribunal context (direct effect, indirect effect, effectiveness, equivalence, non discrimination etc); and
  •   
    (ii)     important in cases involving the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034).
How the Questions in Impact Arose

Impact was referred to the ECJ by the Irish Labour Court in a case brought under the Irish legislation implementing Directive 99/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work (the Fixed Term Work Directive).

Ireland has a similar (although not identical) system to the English employment tribunal system. The similarities

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll