Zoekresultaat: 4 artikelen

x
Case Reports

2018/32 When is travelling time working time? (NO)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Working time
Auteurs Marianne Jenum Hotvedt en Anne-Beth Engan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Norwegian Supreme Court concludes that time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and from a place other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of work, should be considered working time within the meaning of the statutory provisions implementing the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC). This ruling takes into account the Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court.


Marianne Jenum Hotvedt
Marianne Jenum Hotvedt is an associate professor at the Department of Private law, University in Oslo. She got her PhD on the thesis ‘The Employer Concept’.

Anne-Beth Engan
Anne-Beth Engan is a senior associate with the law firm Selmer AS in Oslo.

    This case report concerns the lawfulness of a notified boycott against Holship Norge AS (‘Holship’) by the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (‘NTF’). In its decision, the Supreme Court considered whether the collective agreement exemption from competition law could be applied, and whether the boycott was unlawful pursuant to the right to freedom of establishment established by Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, cf. Article 101 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    The boycott would prevent Holship’s staff from loading and unloading ships docked at the Port of Drammen. NTF’s purpose was to force Holship to enter into a collective agreement containing a priority of engagement clause, reserving loading and unloading work for dockworkers associated with the Administration Office for Dock Work in Drammen. The majority of the plenary Supreme Court found (10-7) that such boycott would be unlawful pursuant to section 2 of the Boycott Act. The dissent concerns the EEA rules.


Kurt Weltzien
Kurt Weltzien is a lawyer in NHO, which is the main representative organisation for Norwegian employers. He has a PhD on the thesis “Boycott in labour conflicts”. Kurt Weltzien also represented NHO in the Supreme Court in the case discussed in this case report.

Anne-Beth Engan
Anne-Beth Engan is an associate with Advokatfirmaet Selmer DA in Oslo.
Case Reports

2016/55 New Supreme Court decision on the distinction between independent contractors and employees (NO)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden Independent contractors, Employees
Auteurs Marianne Jenum Hotvedt en Anne-Beth Engan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    EU employment protection is usually limited to “employees”, meaning that independent contractors are not covered. However, EU law often leaves it to Member States to determine the meaning of employee. The directives regulating transfers of undertakings, collective redundancies, written working conditions, information and consultation, part-time work, temporary agency workers etc. are all examples of protection covering only ‘employees’ as defined by each Member State.
    Consequently, the interpretation of ‘employee’ at the national level determines whether protection in EU law applies. This case report concerns the distinction between an independent contractor and employee. The question was whether a support worker for a child needing extra care and support should be considered as employed by Ålesund municipality. The majority (4-1) found that the support worker was an employee. The case illustrates how the notion of employee in Norwegian law adapts to new ways of organising work and may be of interest in other jurisdictions.


Marianne Jenum Hotvedt
Marianne Jenum Hotvedt is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Private law, University in Oslo. In 2015, she got her Ph.D. on the thesis ‘The Employer Concept’.

Anne-Beth Engan
Anne-Beth Engan is an associate with Advokatfirmaet Selmer DA in Oslo.
Artikel

De natuur in het geding

Over toekenning van rechten aan de natuur

Tijdschrift Caribisch Juristenblad, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden milieu, rechten van de natuur, juridische mogelijkheden
Auteurs Mr. M.A.M. Bury
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Er zijn dermate veel voorbeelden in de (staten)praktijk waarbij het milieu wordt opgeofferd voor economische groei dat de vraag rijst wat de juridische mogelijkheden zijn voor het toekennen van rechten aan de natuur. Onderzocht wordt wat deze rechten mogelijk inhouden, waarna dit wordt afgezet tegen de Natuurbeschermingsverordening van Aruba. Kunnen de belangen van de natuur (wereldwijd) beter behartigd worden als zij rechten heeft? Een universele verklaring van de rechten van de natuur leidt ertoe dat de natuur in alle situaties waarin zich (grensoverschrijdende) milieuschade voordoet voor haar rechten kan opkomen.


Mr. M.A.M. Bury
Mr. M.A.M. Bury is een alumnus van de Universiteit van Aruba en is werkzaam als docent aan diezelfde universiteit.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.