Thread on today's end of term judgments of the CJEU
First, the press release on the latest judgment to find that judicial independence has been compromised in Poland
An infringement proceedings judgment can be enforced by going back to the CJEU and asking it to impose fines in the event of non-compliance. The judgment might also be relevant to applying the EU law linking rule of law breaches with EU funding.
CJEU, employment and equality law
Press release - today's judgment on employer prohibition on headscarves at work
Headscarves at work: the rest of the press release
Note:
- this concerns policies of employers, not governments
- the judgment concerns what employers *may* do, not what they *must* do
- ie an employer may choose *not* to restrict displays of religious faith by staff
Court: employers can limit staff wearing headscarves based on policy of religious neutrality if they are consistently applied and respond to business needs such as customer objection
(My view: this is inconsistent with prior case law re race discrimination/customer objections)
Court explicitly rejects bad idea (endorsed by Advocate General's opinion) of distinction between large and small displays of faith - which would obviously have meant that crucifix was ok but headscarves and turbans were not (not sure about kippah/yarmulke but the point is moot)
CJEU, energy policy
Court upholds Polish challenge to Commission decision approving German decision re gas pipeline bypassing Poland - principle of energy solidarity applies
Polish government: the wicked EU courts are infringing our sovereignty
Also Polish government: EU courts, please rule in our favour against Germany
CJEU: EU citizenship, access to benefits
UK case re EU citizens with pre-settled status: no general right of access to benefits under EU law BUT... curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
...EU law still applies to EU citizens who moved to another Member State legally, so the EU Charter still applies to them in situations involving domestic violence and children. Not clear what this means in practical terms though.
CJEU, employment law
Working time Directive applies to the military, but only in certain circumstances
CJEU, disability discrimination
Estonian law automatically firing prison officers for limited hearing breached EU law - should have provided for possible use of hearing aids, or reasonable accommodation
CJEU, copyright/freedom of expression
AG opinion argues to dismiss Polish challenge to controversial EU copyright law - on the basis of interpreting it to comply with human rights standards curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
CJEU, EU citizenship
Member States can't deny non-economically active EU citizens from other Member States affiliation to the national health service - but Member States *can* insist on them contributing to the costs via sickness insurance
1/ Imagine taking this guy seriously as a source of interpretation of EU law. In my field, the ultimate example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Let's look at the claim in more detail.
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.