{"title":"固定期限合同的限制规定","authors":"N. Gundt","doi":"10.1177/20319525231172090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This case note discusses the lack of remedies in case of an infringement of clause 5 of the Fixed-Term Work Directive 1999 and the dangers in cases where fixed-term work abuses can be traced back to discriminatory treatment. The analysis focuses on the availability of remedies in case of primary EU law being violated, but also on the limits of special treatment that an entreprise de tendance may claim for its employees.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The limitations of fixed-term contract regulation\",\"authors\":\"N. Gundt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525231172090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This case note discusses the lack of remedies in case of an infringement of clause 5 of the Fixed-Term Work Directive 1999 and the dangers in cases where fixed-term work abuses can be traced back to discriminatory treatment. The analysis focuses on the availability of remedies in case of primary EU law being violated, but also on the limits of special treatment that an entreprise de tendance may claim for its employees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231172090\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231172090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
This case note discusses the lack of remedies in case of an infringement of clause 5 of the Fixed-Term Work Directive 1999 and the dangers in cases where fixed-term work abuses can be traced back to discriminatory treatment. The analysis focuses on the availability of remedies in case of primary EU law being violated, but also on the limits of special treatment that an entreprise de tendance may claim for its employees.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
