header-logo header-logo

27 July 2017
Issue: 7756 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

European Union

​Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Bordonaro C-143/16 , [2017] All ER (D) 161 (Jul)

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Arts 2(1), 2(2)(a) and 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 did not preclude a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorised an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reached the age of 25 years. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, in a preliminary ruling, taking the view that such a provision pursued a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and that the means laid down for the attainment of that objective were appropriate and necessary.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll