The Courage ruling establishes that private parties are liable to compensate other private parties for the harm caused by a breach of Art. 101(1) TFEU. This article discusses whether a breach by private parties of other provisions of the TFEU with ‘direct horizontal effect’ also gives rise to non-contractual liability and what are the conditions for such liability to arise.

In this exploratory contribution, the central question is what will happen to students when they leave school and start looking for a job in security care. Three developments are addressed in this context: firstly, there are organizational changes: the municipal level has become increasingly important; in the second place, the complexity of the casuistry with which professionals are confronted is highlighted, and in the third place attention is paid to undesirable behavior with which professionals may be confronted while performing their work. What do these aspects mean for the resilience of the upcoming professional and the preparation for working life during training?

For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.

The basics of how to conduct participant observation are not taught in law schools. This is striking because this methodology has become a common feature of qualitative research and could be very useful in sociolegal research. For those interested in studying ‘law in practice’ instead of ‘law in the books’, qualitative research methods like participant observation are inevitable. However, participant observation is, at best, secondary in the literature on qualitative research in the sociolegal discipline, while there is no guidance on how to conduct this technique whatsoever.Therefore, this article is written with two audiences in mind: It should serve as a useful reference and guide for those who teach qualitative research methods in legal education and who are looking to enhance their knowledge and skills concerning participant observation; it is also meant to serve as a basic primer for the beginning sociolegal researcher who is about to become a participating observer for the first time.

A worker cannot automatically lose the right to annual leave because s/he did not apply for it. The employer must have informed the employee about the opportunity to take leave adequately and in a timely way, and must be able to prove this has been done.

According to German law, every employee is entitled to paid annual leave. The amount of pay is generally calculated based on the current salary (known as the “principle of loss of pay”) but a reduction of working hours during the year does not lead to a reduction of entitlement to holiday pay for previously acquired holiday entitlements. If the entitlement was already acquired before the reduction of working time (which can happen because in Germany holiday entitlement is acquired at the beginning of the calendar year), pay during leave will be based on the salary agreed between the employer and employee when the holiday entitlement was acquired and thus, based on the ‘old’ salary.

A ‘false’ works agreement, which reduces the standard weekly working hours for permanent staff, also applies to leased employees. However, the pay of leased employees remains governed by the applicable collective bargaining agreement, rather than by the ‘false’ works agreement. Therefore, leased (part-time) employees benefitted from the reduced working hours by the ‘false’ works agreement, but received full pay based on the collective bargaining agreement.

A provision of Dutch law, according to which employees who lose their jobs upon retirement are excluded from the right to statutory severance compensation, is not in breach of the Framework Directive.

A worker does not automatically lose the right to annual leave because s/he did not apply for it. The employer must have informed the employee about the opportunity to take the leave adequately and in a timely way, and must be able to prove it. Based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, this applies between individuals as well.

The Danish Supreme Court has held there was no discrimination against four part-time teachers at a university in that they did not receive pension contributions. Their positions could not be compared to those of full-time teachers, who were entitled to pension contributions. However, it did constitute a violation of the Danish rules on fixed-term work that the teachers had, for a number of years, been employed on several fixed-term contracts, as they had, in effect, been continuously employed in the same position. Consequently, the teachers were awarded compensation.

The sole fact that fixed-term employment relationships terminate, whereas permanent relationships do not, does not constitute discrimination. Nevertheless, fixed-term teachers should receive an allowance in lieu of untaken leave.

Heirs of a deceased worker are entitled to an allowance in lieu of untaken paid annual leave. Based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, this applies between individuals as well.

The Austrian Supreme Court has held that the employer must notify the Employment Service (AMS) when it is contemplating collective redundancies, even if they are carried by mutual agreement. The duty of notification is triggered if the employer proposes a mutual termination agreement to a relevant number of employees, provided the offer is binding and can be accepted by the employees within 30 days. If the employer fails to notify the AMS, any subsequent redundancies (or mutual terminations of employment occurring on the employer’s initiative) are void, even if effected after 30 days.

A period of parental leave does not count within the reference period for the purpose of determining an employee’s right to annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled both non-guaranteed and voluntary overtime should be included in the calculation of holiday pay.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is at the discretion of the competent national court to assess whether periods of stand-by time are working time. In doing so, the court should apply Romanian law as interpreted in the light of ECJ case law.