Under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, if an employer becomes insolvent in circumstances where it previously withheld funds from an employee’s salary to pay into an occupational pension scheme – but then failed to make those payments – there is no requirement to exclude those funds from the scope of insolvency proceedings.

Mrs Tolley, a disabled UK national, emigrated from the UK to Spain in 2002, at age 50. Before she left the UK, because she was unable to prepare a meal for herself, she was in receipt of DLA (disability living allowance) benefits. These benefits were stopped when she left the UK, because under UK law, only residents are eligible. Mrs Tolley appealed successfully to the First-tier Tribunal. Its decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred questions to the ECJ, all relating to Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of social security legislation within the EU (now Regulation 883/2004). The ECJ found in Mrs Tolley’s favour.

These cases relate to Decision 1/80 of the ‘Association Council’, a body established pursuant to the 1963 Association Agreement between Turkey and the EU. In both cases, the German immigration authorities had rejected an application to extend the residence permit of a Turkish national but the ECJ found they had a right of residence.

Requiring staff to complete five service years before progressing from the first to the second step on the salary scale, but requiring only two service years for each next step, is not age-discriminatory.

The ECJ found that a gay lecturer was not unlawfully discriminated against under an occupational pension scheme that did not entitle those over a certain age or sexual orientation to claim a survivor’s benefit for their (same-sex) civil partner or spouse.

Where no agreement is reached with employee representatives on a planned collective redundancy, the employer must try to obtain permission from the Minister for Labour – who rarely gives it. The employer in this case argued successfully that this was a serious obstacle to its to freedom to establish and conduct business in Greece.

A ‘temporary’ inability to work may qualify as a ‘long-term’ limitation within the meaning of the ECJ’s case law on Directive 2000/78. Whether this is the case is for the national court to determine. The court may take into account that it is not clear how long the person may take to recover.