header-logo header-logo

28 October 2011 / Trevor Tayleur
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Features , EU , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Through the back door?

Trevor Tayleur analyses confusing case law surrounding the direct effect of EU Directives

It is a basic tenet of EU law that Directives are not capable of horizontal direct effect. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decisively rejected extending horizontal direct effect to Directives (Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl: C-91/92 [1995] All ER (EC) 1). However, subsequent judgments of the court have clouded the issue (Mangold v Helm: C-144/04 [2006] All ER (EC) 383, and Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG: C-555/07 [2010] All ER (EC) 867).

Mangold

Mangold, aged 56, was employed on a fixed-term employment contract. He subsequently brought proceedings in the German courts against his private sector employer, challenging the fixed-term nature of his contract. He argued that the contract breached Directive 2000/78 (the Directive), which prohibits various types of discrimination, including age. The discrimination occurred because a German law introduced in 2002 only permitted fixed term contracts for employees younger than 52 in exceptional circumstances; this restriction did not apply to employees

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll