Issue 2/2024 of the HSI Report on European Labour and Social Security Law has now been published. It presents an overview of the current proceedings and the new judgments before the CJEU and the ECtHR. The report covers the period from April to June 2024.

The CJEU overview contains a number of noteworthy decisions. In the Olympus case (C-706/22), for example, the Court of Justice made a decision on strategies for avoiding co-determination: The negotiated procedure for the involvement of the employee representatives of an European company (SE) should not always be repeated, even if, exceptionally, no negotiations were carried out when it was founded. The decision has far-reaching consequences.

Further decisions deal, among other things, with issues relating to the role of women in the world of work. In the Air Nostrum case (C-314/23), an airline paid a lower "daily allowance" to the flight attendants, 94% of whom are women, than to the pilots, a group predominantly made up of men. The difference in treatment is due to the application of two separately negotiated collective agreements between different trade unions. In his Opinion, the Advocate General examined, among other things, whether the autonomy of the parties to the collective agreement is sufficient justification for this unequal treatment. In the House of Jacobus decision (C-284/23), the CJEU emphasises that a pregnant employee must be given a reasonable period of time to challenge her dismissal in court. German law does not fully comply with these requirements.

Some decisions also stand out among the proceedings before the ECtHR. In Case No. 49014/16 – A.K. v. Russia, a music teacher at a state special school was dismissed because of photos published on social media. Before the ECtHR, she invoked Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) and Art. 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Art. 8 ECHR to claim that her contract had been terminated due to her sexual orientation. Two of the other proceedings before this Court concerned measures in connection with COVID-19 in working life. More particularly, they concern the obligation to compulsory vaccination (No. 37284/23 – Rucki and Others v. Latvia) and the requirement to submit proof of vaccination (No. 18292/23 – de Haro and Others v. France).

Please find the report with open access to everyone under the following link: https://www.hugo-sinzheimer-institut.de/faust-detail.htm?sync_id=HBS-008971