Transfers of undertakings: ‘dynamic’ clauses before the Court of Justice

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F18%3A00105282" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/18:00105282 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-018-0512-9" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-018-0512-9</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0512-9" target="_blank" >10.1007/s12027-018-0512-9</a>

Jazyk výsledku

francouzština

Název v původním jazyce

Les transferts d’entreprise : les clauses « dynamiques » devant la Cour de justice

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In the Alemo-Herron judgment the Court interpreted Article 3 of Directive 2001/23 read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof and in accordance with Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that this provision must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to future collective agreements are enforceable against the transferee, where that transferee has no possibility of participating in the negotiation process of such collective agreements concluded after the date of the transfer. By contrast, in the Asklepios judgment, the Court ruled that the national legislation concerned maintains the possibility for the transferee to organise his activity after the date of the transfer in spite of such a dynamic clause and that therefore there is no need to further scrutinise whether this legislation was compatible with Article 16 of the Charter. Hence, both judgments are mutually coherent, even if they lead to different results.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Transfers of undertakings: ‘dynamic’ clauses before the Court of Justice

Popis výsledku anglicky

In the Alemo-Herron judgment the Court interpreted Article 3 of Directive 2001/23 read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof and in accordance with Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that this provision must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to future collective agreements are enforceable against the transferee, where that transferee has no possibility of participating in the negotiation process of such collective agreements concluded after the date of the transfer. By contrast, in the Asklepios judgment, the Court ruled that the national legislation concerned maintains the possibility for the transferee to organise his activity after the date of the transfer in spite of such a dynamic clause and that therefore there is no need to further scrutinise whether this legislation was compatible with Article 16 of the Charter. Hence, both judgments are mutually coherent, even if they lead to different results.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

ERA Forum

ISSN

1612-3093

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

19

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

219-228

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85047121023