header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008 / Katherine Apps
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Features , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Major impact

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll