André Hoekema, sociologist and lawyer, was one of the driving forces within the sociology and anthropology of law for half a century. His scientific career has been targeted on the development of a non-technic concept of practice for social science, specifically a sociological practice of creating social cohesion and legitimacy and an anthropological practice of cultural self-definition.

In From big five to high five the author analyzes the developments of sociology of law at the law faculties in the Netherlands since the 1970ies until today. Focusing on the professors (‘chairs’) he argues that after a strong start with five prominent scholars the discipline is now placed in the periphery of the law curriculum. Sociology of law is ‘intellectually strong, but institutionally weak’.
The author encourages the present generation professors (‘chairs’) to cooperate more. He claims that writing one modern Dutch Introduction to Sociology of law is crucial to win the hearts and minds of the law students. Furthermore, he suggests that collaborative research projects contributes to the visibility of sociology of law in policy arenas and public debates.

From day one of the journal Recht der Werkelijkheid (Journal of Living Law) the Legal Anthropology was welcomed. What once started as the jurisprudential study on Folk Law on the one hand and the cultural anthropological study of law on the other hand, evolved into an intensive collaboration among the researchers. Even more intensive under the subject Legal Pluralism. The legal anthropological studies extended over the years to subjects closer to the First World legal practices, i.e. the studies of social groups like the one on migrants. Under the concept of semi autonomous social fields many contributions on cultural versus legal norms were published. Later on, the legal anthropological expertise that sustained the comparative studies for international and supranational law was welcomed. The article thus shows that the journal provided room for the socio legal studies of law practices in other continents, expanded to those of other continents in the home continent as well as to those in all continents.

The Higher Administrative Court of Münster (Oberverwaltungsgericht, the ‘OVG’) has held that a minimum body height of 163 cm for applicants to the police service, irrespective of gender, is lawful. At least, this shall apply if the determination of a minimum body height standard is a suitability criterion for access to the police service. Minimum standards solely serve the purpose of ensuring fitness for service and result from a comprehensive investigation. The investigation in this case established that suitability for the police service can only be guaranteed from a height of 163 cm upwards.

This article is about the work of Wibo van Rossum who passed away in April 2018. Trained as a legal anthropologist he has conducted empirical research on the administration of justice in the Netherlands for many years. This anthology is about four research reports he produced and many articles he has written in two decades. This article provides an academic as well as a practical review of his work.

Unlike the common expectations, Islamic primary schools can contribute to the integration of Muslims in the Dutch society. This article is a reflection of Dr Beemsterboer’s doctoral research and asks what this conclusion can say about other religion based primary schools.

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 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.

Following the ECJ’s decision in Somoza Hermo – v – Ilunion Seguridad, C-60/17 (Somoza Hermo) of 11 July 2018, all eyes were on the Spanish Supreme Court. Since 2016, the Court has ruled a number of times that limitations to the liability of the new contractor established in a collective bargaining agreement (‘CBA’) in the context of a CBA-led transfer were valid (see e.g. EELC 2018/21). Somoza Hermo established that a CBA-led transfer that entails a non-asset-based transfer is a transfer within the meaning of the Acquired Rights Directive. Now the Supreme Court (in a decision dated 27 September 2018 taken with one dissenting opinion) is clear that its doctrine must be reviewed and has therefore held that limitations on pre-transfer liability for a new contractor under a CBA-led transfer that trigger a non-asset-based transfer, are not valid.

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.

In a recent decision, the Labour Court awarded an employee € 7,500 for working in excess of 48 hours a week, contrary to working time legislation. The complainant allegedly regularly checked and responded to emails outside of business hours, occasionally after midnight. The Labour Court reiterated it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that employees are not permitted to work beyond the statutory maximum period and that if an employer is aware that an employee is working excessive hours, must take steps to curtail this.

The German Federal Labour Court has held that it was justifiable for the employment of an actor to be limited in time because of the “type of work” involved and the fact that the work was with a film production company, even though the actor was given a number of fixed term employment contracts over around 18 years.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has confirmed that, even if an employee is not actually disabled for the purpose of the relevant statutory test, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against that employee because of a perceived disability.

The German federal court for labour law matters, the Bundesarbeitsgericht (the ‘BAG’), has held that evidence cannot be used in a dismissal lawsuit if the employer has obtained it from long-term surveillance using keylogger-software. Employers must not keep their employees under constant surveillance and must therefore expect their legal position to be weak if they try to dismiss an employee based on findings from such monitoring. The court ruling preceded the ECtHR Barbulescu ruling of 5 September 2017 (featured in EELC 2017/4) in a similar case.

An acquired mother tongue is – at least indirectly – connected to a person’s origin and therefore also linked to ethnic origin. Claims based on the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, the ‘AGG’) must be brought in writing within two months after knowledge of a possible discrimination. Time only starts to run for claims after the employer has provided an unsuccessful job applicant with a clear and definite statement that he or she has been rejected. The limitation period under the AGG will not be triggered by lapse of time only.

A clause in a collective bargaining agreement stipulating that overtime premiums for part time employees are only payable if their monthly working hours exceed those of a full-time employee is not discriminatory.