Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "the employment" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
Tytuł:
Wybór prawa dla umowy o pracę. Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 15 lipca 2021 r. w sprawach połączonych DG, EH c/a SC Gruber Logistics SRL (C-152/20) oraz Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD c/a SC Samidani Trans
The gloss to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 1 July 2021 in the joined cases of DG, EH v. SC Gruber Logistics SRL (C-152/20) and Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD v. SC Samidani Trans SRL (C-218/20)
Autorzy:
Kurowski, Witold
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/20745505.pdf
Data publikacji:
2021-12-29
Wydawca:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego
Tematy:
a choice of law to the individual employment contract
the law applicable to the individual employment contract in the absence of a choice
an employee’s protection, a concept of „provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement”
the minimum wage
Rome I Regulation
Opis:
This paper comments on a recent ruling concerning the choice of law to the individual employment contract according to the Rome I Regulation. In the judgement in the joined cases C–152/20 and C–218/20 (DG, EH v. SC Gruber Logistics SRL and Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD v. SC Samidani Trans SRL), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided the interpretation of Article 8 of the Rome I Regulation on two issues. At first, the EU Court was asked about the freedom of choice of law applicable to the individual employment contract if (a) national law required the inclusion of a clause into that contract under which the contractual provisions are supplemented by national law and (b) the contractual clause concerning that choice was drafted by the employer. The second issue was connected with the concept of the employee’s protection, under which the choice of law may not have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him (her) by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement, under the law that would have been applicable to the contract in the absence of choice. Regarding the first question, the CJEU admitted that the parties to an individual employment contract dispose of freedom to choose the law applicable to that contract, even if the contractual provisions are supplemented by national labour law under a (relevant) national provision, if “the national provision in question does not require the parties to choose national law as the law applicable to that contract”. Secondly, the Court found that the parties to an individual employment contract were “to be regarded as being, in principle, free to choose the law applicable to that contract, even if the contractual clause concerning that choice is drafted by the employer”. Therefore, the CJEU confirmed the application of the rules concerning the choice of law resulting from Article 3 of the Rome I Regulation to the individual employment contracts. Referring to the second issue of the commented ruling, the CJEU confirmed that Article 8 (1) of the Rome I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties have chosen the law governing the individual employment contract, the application of the law that would apply to the contract in the absence of choice must be excluded, with the exception of “provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement”, if those provisions offer the employee concerned greater protection than those of the law chosen by the parties. The EU Court underlined that rules on the minimum wage could be treated as “provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement” and the law that, in the absence of choice, would be applicable should decide about it. Unfortunately, it is necessary to follow the commented judgment’s justification to correctly understand the concept of an employee’s protection applied in Article 8 (1) of the Rome I Regulation. The thesis of the ruling in this regard seems to be too laconic, and it can be misinterpreted. 
Źródło:
Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego; 2021, 29; 169-190
1896-7604
2353-9852
Pojawia się w:
Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Wpływ nowelizacji dyrektywy 96/71/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 16 grudnia 1996 r. dotyczącej delegowania pracowników w ramach świadczenia usług na statut stosunku pracy
The impact of the revision of the Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services on the applicable law to the employment relationship
Autorzy:
Kurowski, Witold
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1030067.pdf
Data publikacji:
2020-12-29
Wydawca:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego
Tematy:
the posted workers
freedom to provide services
law applicable to the individual employment contracts
Rome I Regulation
Directive 96/71/EC
Directive (EU) 2018/957
Opis:
The Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 introduced several changes to the Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, affecting the posted worker’s employment relationships directly. Article 3(1) of the Directive 96/71/EC requires that an employer has to guarantee his workers posted to the Member State, the terms and conditions of employment, in matters listed in it, resulting from the law where the work is carried out, regardless of the law applicable to employment relationships. First of all, the Directive (EU) 2018/957 introduced the new concept of “remuneration” paid to the posted workers. Secondly, it extended the list of mattes in article 3(1) by adding point (h) — “the conditions of workers’ accommodation where provided by the employer to workers away from their regular place of work” and point (i) — “allowances or reimbursement of expenditure to cover travel, board and lodging expenses for workers away from home for professional reasons.” Finally, the Directive (EU) 2018/957 established the posting period, not clearly defined before, which should not last longer than 12 months (18 months when the service provider submits a motivated notification).This paper analyses the main changes introduced by the Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending the Directive 96/71/EC in the employment relationship field.
Źródło:
Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego; 2020, 27; 283-302
1896-7604
2353-9852
Pojawia się w:
Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies