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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll