Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Court Of Justice Judgment Case C-144/04 Mangold. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper explains what this EU case was about. The paper discusses the Court’s ruling and some of the criticisms against it. The paper also discusses horizontal direct effect and whether this cased changes that concept. Bibliography lists 7 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: ME12_PG696683.doc
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
prior to getting a fixed-term contract with this employers. There were no objective reasons for having fixed term contracts rather than just a contract with the company. At the time
the employer entered into these contract, there was no prohibition against them in terms of version of ? 14.3 sentence 4 of the Law on Part-Time Working and Fixed-Term Contracts
(Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz - TzBfG). In fact, it was legal and possible to deviate from the principle that an objective reason was needed and required providing the employee had reached
the age of 52 when employment began (Press Release 2010). The claimant Mangold brought a case against employer Helm. The allegation was age discrimination. On November 22, 2005, the European
Court of Justice delivered its preliminary ruling from the Labour Court in Munich (Schmidt 2005, p. 505). The ruling addressed Clauses 2, 5, and 8 of the Framework Agreement concerning
fixed-term contracts. That Directive was put in place in 1999. The Court was exploring whether or not a statutory provision exempting employees who were 52 and older from the limitations
for fixed-term contracts and if they were compatible with Community law (Schmidt 2005, p. 505). The Court of Justice found that Community law and most specifically, "Article 6(1) of
Directive 1000/78, precludes national legislation from permitting the unrestricted conclusion of fixed term contracts of employment for workers age 523 and older" (Jans 2007, p. 53). The Court stated that
it was up to "national courts to ensure the full implementation of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, even if the implementation period for the Directives had
not yet lapsed" (Euro.Lex.Duropa.com 2005; Jans 2007, p. 53). The was the most startling ruling in labor law history. Furthermore, the rulings of this court in this case reach far
...