Year: 2024
Type: article
Abstract: THE question of direct effect has exercised EU lawyers for decades.To some, the evolving case law appears like angels dancing on the head of a pin.KL v X (C-715/20, EU:C:2024:139) invites yet another guest to this heavenly host.The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") arose out of a request for a preliminary ruling concerning Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work (annexed to Directive No 1999/70/EC (OJ L175, 10/07/1999)) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights ("CFR").KL argued that he had been unlawfully dismissed by X sp.zo.o.("X").The thrust of KL's case was that, as a fixed-term worker, he suffered discrimination because his employer was not required to state the reasons for his dismissal, whereas such a duty would have arisen under Article 30(4) of the Polish Labour Code had KL been employed on a permanent contract.This, so KL argued, was incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, which provides: "In respect of employment conditions, fixed-term workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers : : : unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds."Consequently, the Polish District Court issued a preliminary reference asking: (1) whether Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement precluded legislation under which a duty to give reasons arises solely in respect of workers with a permanent contract; and, if so (2) whether Clause 4 can be relied upon in a dispute between a natural and legal person (i.e. in a "horizontal dispute").Both the constitutionality and compatibility of Article 30(4) of the Labour Code had already received attention by the Polish Constitutional Court in 2008 and the Polish Supreme Court in 2019 (see [23] and [26]).While the Supreme Court harboured doubts, it ultimately stopped short of disapplying the provision.The CJEU began its analysis by confirming that the modalities for termination under Polish law fell within the concept of "employment conditions" in the Framework Agreement and, although already decided on the point, added that the prohibition against discrimination in Clause 4 is but a specific expression of the more general principle of equality and must not be interpreted restrictively.The court next examined the actual impact of the different requirements and concluded that a fixedterm worker would, as a matter of fact, be treated less favourably by being denied reasons for his or her dismissal.This finding was grounded in a purposive comparison centred on the relative ability to prepare and initiate legal action challenging the termination.In emphasising the 417
Source: The Cambridge Law Journal
Author: Nabil Khabirpour
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,450
OpenAlex ID: W4406151289