Search results

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

Aims to trace the legal bases for the protection of fundamental rights in the European Community and the European Union, but looks here at internal policy only. Though there was no basis in the Treaty of Rome (1957) for human rights, the European Court of Justice has declared that fundamental human rights are enshrined in the general principles of Community law and thereby protected by the Court. Investigates the Charter, in full, herein

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

German consumers are not really like the image that the German courts present. The portrait of a helpless, debilitated, immature creature who is in need of protection so as not to be led astray by advertising is not accurate. The European Court of Justice paints the average buyer as sensible, attentive and cautious, as well as possessing the ability to analyse the message behind advertising. So, in fact, the German consumer is awake and responsive to European developments. What is needed is a balance between market freedom and the protection of consumers; including a high availability of information for these potential buyers. When the consumer is adequately informed he/she will then be in the position to reap the full benefits of a single European market. But market access is crucial. With the growth of market access and information the subsequent behaviour of the potential consumers is determined by their ability to make rational decisions once given all the information. The availability of consumer information is twofold when applied to regulating the market: the autonomy of consumers becomes the mechanism for reconciling the market freedom rights of manufacturers; and the right that the buyer possesses to have their economic interests protected.

This article examines the four primary discourses of judging that dominate discussion of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and its role in the process of European integration. These discourses present sharply contrasting views of what the Court does and what role it plays in the EU's legal system. The article argues that these conflicting discourses are not merely rival depictions of the ECJ, but that they have also influenced the process of European legal integration – and not always in the ways those voicing them intended.

This essay argues that Stuart Scheingold's finest book is The Rule of Law in European Integration, a version of his doctoral dissertation published in 1965 by Yale University Press. It examines the argument of this book – that the European Court of Justice was largely responsible for creating the “new Europe,” and its constitution – and assesses the evidence that Scheingold adduced to support this claim. The conclusion is that Scheingold produced a unique and convincing and important book. The essay then shows that this book disappeared without a trace. It should have won awards and been celebrated for the breakthrough analysis it was. Instead it disappeared, and a discouraged Scheingold abandoned this project and turned to other scholarly interests. The essay advances three arguments as to why the book had no impact. First, it was so far ahead of its time that it failed even to have an audience, and what few readers it had failed to appreciate its significance. Second, it had the misfortune of being written in the jargon-heavy language of structural functionalism just as this theory disappeared from fashion virtually overnight. Third, the book focuses on a form of law that is not in fashion with sociolegal scholars, who are preoccupied with commands and rights, and not with courts’ abilities to create and empower new institutions. A final optimistic note is sounded in the face of this depressing account. When Scheingold abandoned his first field and turned to other scholarly interests, here too he made highly original and convincing arguments. But here, in contrast to his earlier experience with regional integration, this later work was widely recognized and praised, and the best of it is quite properly described as “classic.”

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Government appointed and sponsored committees of every description—select, ad hoc, advisory, inquiry—such a prominent feature of the public scene since the last War, are understandable, even acceptable, reflect the urgency of the times in which we live. In the gathering gloom of more recent twilight years, they have flourished inordinately, especially in the socio‐political field, where most of their researches have been conducted. Usually embellished with the name of the figure‐head chairman, almost always expensively financed, they have one thing in common—an enormous output of words, telling us much of what we already know. So much of it seems dull, meaningless jargon, reflecting attitudes rather than sound, general principles.