header-logo header-logo

Through the back door?

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll