Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211035268
P. Daly, D. Whelan
This article re-considers the special features of the disability ground in EU equality law and raises questions as to whether the EU’s Framework Equality Directive (Directive 2000/78) may be in need of fundamental reform. It argues that the ‘Competence Defence’ in the Directive could have been more strongly drafted, to prescribe more precisely the circumstances in which an individual may be found not to be competent to perform the post’s essential functions. In the absence of a unified EU approach regarding the activation of the reasonable accommodation duty and an employer’s knowledge as to disability or the need for reasonable accommodation, national positions are compared. A model whereby the provision for individuals with disabilities is carried out in a proactive as opposed to a reactive manner could reduce the need for the reasonable accommodation system. The possibility of increased state involvement in the provision of reasonable accommodation to employees has strong potential. It is proposed that the principle of Universal Design, as expressed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, could be used to ensure that work environments are developed from the outset to be conducive to the needs of those with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The implications of such a major change are assessed.
{"title":"Disability in employment equality law: A reappraisal of the reasonable accommodation duty and issues arising in its implementation","authors":"P. Daly, D. Whelan","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211035268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211035268","url":null,"abstract":"This article re-considers the special features of the disability ground in EU equality law and raises questions as to whether the EU’s Framework Equality Directive (Directive 2000/78) may be in need of fundamental reform. It argues that the ‘Competence Defence’ in the Directive could have been more strongly drafted, to prescribe more precisely the circumstances in which an individual may be found not to be competent to perform the post’s essential functions. In the absence of a unified EU approach regarding the activation of the reasonable accommodation duty and an employer’s knowledge as to disability or the need for reasonable accommodation, national positions are compared. A model whereby the provision for individuals with disabilities is carried out in a proactive as opposed to a reactive manner could reduce the need for the reasonable accommodation system. The possibility of increased state involvement in the provision of reasonable accommodation to employees has strong potential. It is proposed that the principle of Universal Design, as expressed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, could be used to ensure that work environments are developed from the outset to be conducive to the needs of those with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The implications of such a major change are assessed.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"744 - 759"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47948740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211048595
Zhen Chen
Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.
{"title":"The Tango Between Art.17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art.6(4)(b) Rome I under the Beat of Package Travel Directive","authors":"Zhen Chen","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211048595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211048595","url":null,"abstract":"Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"878 - 899"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48431239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-29DOI: 10.1177/1023263x211063761
P. Nicolaides
{"title":"The Danger of Judicial Nationalism","authors":"P. Nicolaides","doi":"10.1177/1023263x211063761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x211063761","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"741 - 743"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45806944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-22DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211048602
P. Nicolaides
The Court of Justice made legal history in Ledra Advertising when it found that the EU could incur non-contractual liability even for acts that formally fell within the intergovernmental sphere. In Chrysostomides, however, by ruling that the Euro Group is not an EU ‘institution’, the Court has made it largely impossible for individuals to obtain judicial protection. The decisions of the Council that give effect to agreements in the Euro Group can be drafted in innocuous and general language, minimizing or even expunging any liability. The powers of the Commission to act against such agreements in the Euro Group are also unclear and probably non-existent.
{"title":"The Euro Group and judicial protection: Has the Court of Justice created a loophole?","authors":"P. Nicolaides","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211048602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211048602","url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Justice made legal history in Ledra Advertising when it found that the EU could incur non-contractual liability even for acts that formally fell within the intergovernmental sphere. In Chrysostomides, however, by ruling that the Euro Group is not an EU ‘institution’, the Court has made it largely impossible for individuals to obtain judicial protection. The decisions of the Council that give effect to agreements in the Euro Group can be drafted in innocuous and general language, minimizing or even expunging any liability. The powers of the Commission to act against such agreements in the Euro Group are also unclear and probably non-existent.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"919 - 930"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49068208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211048603
M. Moussa
Against the background of the PSPP judgement, the article conducts an under-researched comparison of the German Court's recent judgement with incidents of defiance from American states’ legislatures. Particularly, it highlights the example of marijuana laws in the US where a handful of states managed to legislate de facto governing norms contrary to the federal ones. The article then examines the German Court's last decision on sovereign bonds to compare the underlying factors that facilitates European judicial defiance with those contributing to occasional state legislator resistance in the US. Comparison to the highly centralized US shows that defiance of supremacy cannot be eliminated, but its conducive factors can be controlled to ensure a functioning constitutional system. To do so, attention must be paid to popular, fiscal and political factors, rather than to exclusively legalistic ones.
{"title":"On sovereign bonds and marijuana: Comparing supremacy limits in the US and the EU","authors":"M. Moussa","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211048603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211048603","url":null,"abstract":"Against the background of the PSPP judgement, the article conducts an under-researched comparison of the German Court's recent judgement with incidents of defiance from American states’ legislatures. Particularly, it highlights the example of marijuana laws in the US where a handful of states managed to legislate de facto governing norms contrary to the federal ones. The article then examines the German Court's last decision on sovereign bonds to compare the underlying factors that facilitates European judicial defiance with those contributing to occasional state legislator resistance in the US. Comparison to the highly centralized US shows that defiance of supremacy cannot be eliminated, but its conducive factors can be controlled to ensure a functioning constitutional system. To do so, attention must be paid to popular, fiscal and political factors, rather than to exclusively legalistic ones.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"834 - 855"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41949610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211042471
R. Ó Fathaigh, T. Dobber, Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, James Shires
This article discusses a problem that has received scant attention in literature: microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors. Microtargeting involves collecting information about people, and using that information to show them targeted political advertisements. Such microtargeting enables advertisers to target ads to specific groups of people, for instance people who visit certain websites, forums, or Facebook groups. This article focuses on one type of microtargeting: microtargeting by foreign actors. For example, Russia has targeted certain groups in the US with ads, aiming to sow discord. Foreign actors could also try to influence European elections, for instance by advertising in favour of a certain political party. Foreign propaganda possibilities existed before microtargeting. This article explores two questions. In what ways, if any, is microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors different from other foreign propaganda? What could lawmakers in Europe do to mitigate the risks of microtargeted propaganda?
{"title":"Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration","authors":"R. Ó Fathaigh, T. Dobber, Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, James Shires","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211042471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211042471","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses a problem that has received scant attention in literature: microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors. Microtargeting involves collecting information about people, and using that information to show them targeted political advertisements. Such microtargeting enables advertisers to target ads to specific groups of people, for instance people who visit certain websites, forums, or Facebook groups. This article focuses on one type of microtargeting: microtargeting by foreign actors. For example, Russia has targeted certain groups in the US with ads, aiming to sow discord. Foreign actors could also try to influence European elections, for instance by advertising in favour of a certain political party. Foreign propaganda possibilities existed before microtargeting. This article explores two questions. In what ways, if any, is microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors different from other foreign propaganda? What could lawmakers in Europe do to mitigate the risks of microtargeted propaganda?","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"856 - 877"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43947921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-13DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211042465
Jaan Paju
The issue at stake in Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija is whether a personal choice on the part of a patient, based on religious beliefs, must be considered when assessing the need for cross-border healthcare. The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is applicable and the right to freedom of religion can be invoked, in addition to medical criteria. However, the sustainability of the healthcare system can be an objective justification for refusal to grant authorisation for cross-border healthcare. Furthermore, the case clarifies – to a certain extent – the parallel tracks for claiming cross-border healthcare.
{"title":"Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija","authors":"Jaan Paju","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211042465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211042465","url":null,"abstract":"The issue at stake in Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija is whether a personal choice on the part of a patient, based on religious beliefs, must be considered when assessing the need for cross-border healthcare. The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is applicable and the right to freedom of religion can be invoked, in addition to medical criteria. However, the sustainability of the healthcare system can be an objective justification for refusal to grant authorisation for cross-border healthcare. Furthermore, the case clarifies – to a certain extent – the parallel tracks for claiming cross-border healthcare.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"900 - 907"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45411420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-25DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211042470
G. Guerra
This article discusses key and critical tort law issues that have arisen from artificial intelligence and robotic medical applications. It aims at addressing the most recent European regulatory trajectories – ultimately traced by the Proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act April 21 2021 – starting from the study of the legal issues that stemmed from the instructive experience of the US litigation on robotic surgery, which was foregoing on account of its cutting-edge and accelerated enhancement of the field. The recognition and analysis of the criticalities about products’ malfunctioning as well as the focus on other producers’ duties will lead the reader to reflect on the suitability of the legal rules planned by the European Authorities on the ground of the empirical features of the new step of technological progress in the field in question.
{"title":"Evolving artificial intelligence and robotics in medicine, evolving European law. Comparative remarks based on the surgery litigation","authors":"G. Guerra","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211042470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211042470","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses key and critical tort law issues that have arisen from artificial intelligence and robotic medical applications. It aims at addressing the most recent European regulatory trajectories – ultimately traced by the Proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act April 21 2021 – starting from the study of the legal issues that stemmed from the instructive experience of the US litigation on robotic surgery, which was foregoing on account of its cutting-edge and accelerated enhancement of the field. The recognition and analysis of the criticalities about products’ malfunctioning as well as the focus on other producers’ duties will lead the reader to reflect on the suitability of the legal rules planned by the European Authorities on the ground of the empirical features of the new step of technological progress in the field in question.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"805 - 833"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45623594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263x211053296
Thomas Biermeyer
20 years ago, on 8 October 2001, Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) was enacted (the ‘SE Regulation’). This legislative act has given rise to the European public limited liability company law form called Societas Europaea or, in its short form, ‘SE’. The Societas Europaea exists in all EU Member States based on the national transposition of the SE Regulation, and it is the most important of three European company law forms next to the European Cooperative Society (SCE) and the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG). Such birthday seems an appropriate occasion to reflect on the project of the Societas Europaea. The argument brought forward in this editorial is that that the SE may have to be regarded from a more specialised perspective than an attempt to create a European counterpart emulating a flagship national company law form. Rather, the entity could be adapted to specific purposes following larger pan-European commercial demands, for example in the area of financing transactions. At the beginning, the SE was a dream: even before the creation of the European Union, on the 26th German Juristentag in 1926, Geiler proposed the creation of a supranational company form which would be available along with its national counterparts. Further, shortly after the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, on 22 October 1959, Sanders addressed the topic of a European public limited liability company in an inaugural lecture at the University of Rotterdam. The idea behind the European public limited liability was not so much to harmonise the provisions of national public limited liability company law forms, which one could also call the national flagship company law forms, like the German Aktiengesellschaft, the French société anonyme, or the Dutch naamloze vennootschap; the idea was instead to add a European public limited liability company law form, which would then exist throughout all Member States. Foreign investors, for example, would not have to become familiar with specific national company forms but could fall back in each Member State on the same European company law form. Moreover, the company law form would be highly modern and reflect
20年前，即2001年10月8日，关于欧洲公司(SE)法规的理事会法规(EC) No 2157/2001颁布(“SE法规”)。这一立法法案产生了欧洲公共有限责任公司法形式，称为Societas Europaea，或简称为“SE”。欧洲社会是基于欧盟公司法的国家转换而存在于所有欧盟成员国，是继欧洲合作社(SCE)和欧洲经济利益集团(EEIG)之后的三种欧洲公司法形式中最重要的一种。这样的生日似乎是反思欧洲社会计划的适当时机。这篇社论提出的观点是，可能必须从一个更专业的角度来看待新加坡证券交易所，而不是试图创建一个效仿旗舰国家公司法形式的欧洲同行。相反，该实体可以根据更大的泛欧商业需求，例如在融资交易领域，对特定目的进行调整。一开始，SE是一个梦想:甚至在欧盟成立之前，在1926年第26届德国法官会议上，盖勒就提议创建一种超国家的公司形式，这种公司形式将与国家公司一起使用。此外，在1957年签订《罗马条约》的欧洲经济共同体成立后不久，1959年10月22日，桑德斯在鹿特丹大学的就职演讲中谈到了欧洲公共有限责任公司的主题。欧洲公共有限责任背后的想法与其说是为了协调各国公共有限责任公司法形式的规定，人们也可以称之为国家旗舰公司法形式，如德国的Aktiengesellschaft、法国的societanonyme或荷兰的naamloze vennootschap;取而代之的想法是增加一种欧洲公共有限责任公司法形式，然后在所有会员国中存在。例如，外国投资者不必熟悉具体的国家公司形式，但可以在每个成员国采用相同的欧洲公司法形式。此外，公司法形式将具有高度的现代性和反映性
{"title":"20 Years of the SE Regulation – The Rise of a Specific Purpose Vehicle?","authors":"Thomas Biermeyer","doi":"10.1177/1023263x211053296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x211053296","url":null,"abstract":"20 years ago, on 8 October 2001, Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) was enacted (the ‘SE Regulation’). This legislative act has given rise to the European public limited liability company law form called Societas Europaea or, in its short form, ‘SE’. The Societas Europaea exists in all EU Member States based on the national transposition of the SE Regulation, and it is the most important of three European company law forms next to the European Cooperative Society (SCE) and the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG). Such birthday seems an appropriate occasion to reflect on the project of the Societas Europaea. The argument brought forward in this editorial is that that the SE may have to be regarded from a more specialised perspective than an attempt to create a European counterpart emulating a flagship national company law form. Rather, the entity could be adapted to specific purposes following larger pan-European commercial demands, for example in the area of financing transactions. At the beginning, the SE was a dream: even before the creation of the European Union, on the 26th German Juristentag in 1926, Geiler proposed the creation of a supranational company form which would be available along with its national counterparts. Further, shortly after the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, on 22 October 1959, Sanders addressed the topic of a European public limited liability company in an inaugural lecture at the University of Rotterdam. The idea behind the European public limited liability was not so much to harmonise the provisions of national public limited liability company law forms, which one could also call the national flagship company law forms, like the German Aktiengesellschaft, the French société anonyme, or the Dutch naamloze vennootschap; the idea was instead to add a European public limited liability company law form, which would then exist throughout all Member States. Foreign investors, for example, would not have to become familiar with specific national company forms but could fall back in each Member State on the same European company law form. Moreover, the company law form would be highly modern and reflect","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"597 - 600"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42220805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-22DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211051833
Delphine Defossez
Online platforms are revolutionizing our daily lives in an attempt to make it easier by offering innovative services. They also have introduced radical new business models which provide a new type of flexible working, facilitating employment. While platforms are revolutionary vehicles, they also denied workers status, resulting in food delivery riders facing precarious working conditions. The current regulatory framework is underdeveloped and unable to guarantee basic social rights to platform workers, except for Spain. At the same time, delivery workers are fighting to get some form of recognition and protection. Consequently, courts have been increasingly requested to determine the riders’ legal status. However, courts are struggling in characterizing those employment relationships resulting in disparities. For instance, the Cour de Cassation in France has established that an employer-employee relationship existed while the UK High Court denied worker status to Deliveroo riders. This lack of harmonization and different rulings could result in the application of EU rules in some countries but not others. It might, therefore, be time for the EU to start recognizing and regulating these jobs to offer better worker protections.
{"title":"The employment status of food delivery riders in Europe and the UK: Self-employed or worker?","authors":"Delphine Defossez","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211051833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211051833","url":null,"abstract":"Online platforms are revolutionizing our daily lives in an attempt to make it easier by offering innovative services. They also have introduced radical new business models which provide a new type of flexible working, facilitating employment. While platforms are revolutionary vehicles, they also denied workers status, resulting in food delivery riders facing precarious working conditions. The current regulatory framework is underdeveloped and unable to guarantee basic social rights to platform workers, except for Spain. At the same time, delivery workers are fighting to get some form of recognition and protection. Consequently, courts have been increasingly requested to determine the riders’ legal status. However, courts are struggling in characterizing those employment relationships resulting in disparities. For instance, the Cour de Cassation in France has established that an employer-employee relationship existed while the UK High Court denied worker status to Deliveroo riders. This lack of harmonization and different rulings could result in the application of EU rules in some countries but not others. It might, therefore, be time for the EU to start recognizing and regulating these jobs to offer better worker protections.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"25 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44379110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：