Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-10-08-Speech-2-270-937"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131008.29.2-270-937"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Under private international law in the EU, the recast Brussels I Regulation decides which court settles employment disputes. The Rome I and Rome II Regulations deal with employment contracts and industrial action. Furthermore, an employee may only be sued in courts in their place of residence, while on the other hand, an employee may bring a case against their employer in the courts of a Member State where the employer is resident, or where ‘the business which engaged the employee is or was situated’. This is potentially hurtful to employees, especially where there is no stable place of work. Moreover, an employee may be sued in the Member State where the ‘harmful event’ took place, but this incorporates both the location causing the damage and the place where the firm experienced a loss. Thus, a single vote on abolishing the factor of the ‘engaging place of businessʼ and accepting a reference to the ‘place from where the employee receives day-to-day instructions’ will strengthen the relationship between the courts and re-establish the balance in employment law."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples