Case C-569/16, Bauer – an heir’s accrued leave rights post-Bollacke but contra legem

After the CJEU’s labour law Bollacke judgment, if a worker had accrued paid annual leave but had died before taking it, then it looked like the heir to his estate could claim a cash equivalent from the employer. Yet the effect of this new EU labour law right seems to be drained by old German inheritance law. Thus, what is a German labour law judge to do? Applying the EU’s ‘working time’ Directive 2003/88/EC or Article 31(2) of the EU Charter would clearly be contra legem so there is no obligation on the national court to give effect to it. However, if EU labour law prevails, then does it matter that the employer was a public body (Case C-569/16) or a private company (Case C-570/16)? More

Case C-470/16, North East Pylon Pressure Campaign – piling on the environmental information pressure

If there is an EU-authorised construction project that requires an ‘environmental impact statement’ for the purposes of the EU’s Directive 97/11/EC, but the environmental information which underpins that statement is then suddenly changed; then when can people go to their local judge and ask him to review this matter of EU environmental law? Must they wait for a planning body to issue a final decision before they can go to a judge? And what should be done in Ireland? People there have already gone to their local judge before the final decision and have asked for an injunction to stop a planning enquiry. The State owned energy company says that this is a frivolous legal action because of course the Irish court must wait for the Irish body to make a determination; consequently, the company wants its litigation costs paid for by the claimant. And while Irish law does allow costs to be awarded in the event of a claim being frivolous, is that Irish exception (and others in Irish costs law) compatible with the principle in the EU Directive and Aarhus Convention that each side bears its own costs? And what should an Irish judge do when another part of the Irish legislation seems to reflect another Aarhus Convention obligation but it is even narrower in scope than the Convention? More

Case C-143/16, Abercrombie and Fitch – Italy’s labour law for the under 25’s

Italian law permits a person under 25 to be employed on an ‘on-call’ or ‘zero-hours’ employment contract. In this case, the employer employed a young man for ‘on-call’ shop work. The employer then got rid of him when he turned 25. This left the worker without a job and the feeling that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his age. Since the EU Charter bans discrimination, the question is whether this plank of Italian labour law is compatible with the EU Charter. More

Case C-73/16, Puškár – privacy requires removal from a tax office blacklist

If personal information is given to the tax office, then when can it be processed for other purposes without that person’s consent? For example, is consent required when data is made available to other state bodies such as those concerned with combating financial fraud? More

Case C-553/15, Undis Servizi – the Teckal exception is pants

An important exception to the application of EU procurement law is where a public body awards a contract to a body that is akin to an ‘in-house’ body. Known as the ‘Teckal’ exception, its precise scope has undergone several refinements by the CJEU in recent years. However, one of the requirements of the Teckal exception is that an ‘essential part’ of the in-house body’s activities be devoted principally to the public body. The question now asked by the Italian Council of State is how an ‘essential activity’ should be assessed. More