European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1 and 8 of Directive (EC) 2008-94 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Hogan and other former employees of Waterford Crystal Ltd (Waterford Crystal), the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland and the Attorney General concerning the transposition of that Directive.
European Union Social Security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(r) and 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408-71 of the Council of 14June 1971 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) 118-97 of 2December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) (the Regulation).The request had been made in proceedings between M and the National Belgian Pensions Office concerning the failure to take into account, for the purpose of calculating his retirement pension in Belgium, a period of incapacity for work in respect of which he had received sickness insurance benefit in another member state, namely the Netherlands.
European Union Equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 1257-1999 of 17 May 1999 (on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)) and amending and repealing certain Regulation and the general European Union law principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The request had been made in proceedings between Mrs Soukupov, a farmer, and the Ministerstvo zemdlstv (Czech Ministry of Agriculture), concerning the refusal of her application for registration under the scheme for support for early retirement from farming.
Employment Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the appeal of a female employee to amend her claim to include a claim for sexual harassment would be allowed. The employee had made a money claim, but had not included or identified her discrimination claim in her ET1. She later sent details of the harassment to the employment tribunal.
European Union Pension. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the actions in two joint cases brought by members of the European Parliament, namely Lord Inglewood and others, against the European Parliament. Those members had sought: (i) a declaration that the decision of 1 April 2009, making changes to the rules of their pension scheme, had been unlawful; and (ii) an annulment of the contested decisions giving effect to those changes.
European Union Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77-388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) and art 135(1)(g) of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (England and Wales) in proceedings between Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd (Wheels) and others and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (England and Wales) concerning the latter's refusal to exempt fund management services supplied to Wheels and others from VAT.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of the employer against the failure of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) to make any deduction in the compensation awarded to reflect the likelihood of the employee, who had been dismissed one year after he had turned 65, being fairly dismissed had the correct procedures been followed. The employee cross-appealed from the rejection of the victimisation claim and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in support of the crossappeal. The EAT held that the judgment of the tribunal in rejecting the employee's post-employment victimisation case would be upheld and his appeal (actually pursued by way of a cross-appeal) on that point would be dismissed.
Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 141 EC Treaty and Council Directive (EEC) 75-117 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women) in proceedings between Margaret Kenny and 13 other civil servants, on the one hand, and the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others concerning a difference in pay between the employees in the main proceedings and another group of civil servants.
European Union Taxation. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to accept the claims by the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme (trustees) that: (i) the absence of a tax credit for foreign income dividends, by reason of s246C of the constituted a prima facie breach of art 56 of the EC Treaty (Free Movement of Capital) (the Treaty) which was not justified; and (ii) s 231(1) of that Act, in restricting tax credits on dividends to dividends received from United Kingdom-resident companies, was a clear breach of art 56 of the Treaty, but to decide that of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applied, with the result that the those claims were time-barred.
Race relations Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to find that there had been no error of law in the employment tribunal's remedies decision awarding compensation against the defendant authority, a potential employer, in excess of the amount of compensation that it had awarded to the claimant as against an employee who had been the main discriminator against the claimant.