Employee Rights Resulting from the European Union Directives and Their Enforceability in the Private Sector

Tereza Erényi

Full Text of Paper

Issue of Scientific Journal No. 2025-01
Read paper (PDF)

  • Source Type: Journal
  • Document Type: Study
  • Document Language: Czech
  • Published on: 31. 3. 2025
  • File Format: PDF
  • File Size: 774 kB

In: Societas et iurisprudentia • 2025 • Volume 13 • Issue 1 • Pages 63-88 • ISSN 1339-5467

Abstract: The paper summarizes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has led to exceptions to the principle prohibiting the direct horizontal effect of directives in the field of employment law. In its case law, the Court of Justice of the European Union acknowledges the possibility for employees to claim rights arising from the European Union directives in cases of incorrect implementation, even against private employers. This approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union is permitted only in limited circumstances, where it is determined that insufficient transposition of the directive simultaneously results in a violation of a right arising from the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. For private employers, this approach means considerable legal uncertainty, and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s tendencies are often criticised in the literature. In our paper, we analyse the Court of Justice of the European Union’s key case law in this area from the famous Mangold case from 2005 to the most recent 2024 judgment in K. L., with a view to highlighting possible future developments and practical implications.

Key Words: Labour Law; European Union Law; European Union Directives; Employer; Employee; Direct Horizontal Effect; the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; Discrimination; Holiday; Working Time; the Czech Republic.

ORCID: ORCID iDhttps://orcid.org/0009-0004-0756-0104

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31262/1339-5467/2025/13/1/63-88

URL: https://sei.iuridica.truni.sk/archive/2025/01/SEI-2025-01-Studies-Erenyi-Tereza.pdf

CopyrightCopyright © 2025 Tereza Erényi

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Bibliographic Citation

ERÉNYI, T. Práva zaměstnanců vyplývající ze směrnic Evropské unie a jejich vynutitelnost v soukromém sektoru. Societas et iurisprudentia [online]. 2025, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63-88 [cit. 2020-01-01]. ISSN 1339-5467. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31262/1339-5467/2025/13/1/63-88.

References

ADAMS-PRASSL, J. Article 47 CFR and the Effective Enforcement of EU Labour Law: Teeth for Paper Tigers?. European Labour Law Journal [online]. 2020, vol. 11, no. 4, s. 391-402 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 2399-5556. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1177/2031952520905383.

BARNARD, C. Are Social ‘Rights’ Rights?. European Labour Law Journal [online]. 2020, vol. 11, no. 4, s. 351-363 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 2399-5556. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1177/2031952520905382.

BOBEK, M., P. BŘÍZA a P. HUBKOVÁ. Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské unie. 2. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2022. 570 s. ISBN 978-80-7400-896-2.

Case of A. Foster and Others v. British Gas plc [1990-07-12]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 1990, C-188/89.

Case of Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti v. Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman – Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale [2021-03-17]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2021, C-585/19.

Case of Association de médiation sociale v. Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others [2013-07-18]. Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, 2013, C-176/12.

Case of Association de médiation sociale v. Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others [2014-01-15]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, C-176/12.

Case of Cresco Investigation GmbH v. Markus Achatzi [2018-07-25]. Opinion of Advocate General Bobek, 2018, C-193/17.

Case of Cresco Investigation GmbH v. Markus Achatzi [2019-01-22]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2019, C-193/17.

Case of D. J. v. Radiotelevizija Slovenija [2021-03-09]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2021, C-344/19.

Case of Dansk Industri (DI), Acting on Behalf of Ajos A/S v. Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen [2016-04-19]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2016, C-441/14.

Case of Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v. Deutsche Bank SAE [2019-01-31]. Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella, 2019, C-55/18.

Case of Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v. Deutsche Bank SAE [2019-05-14]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2019, C-55/18.

Case of Gérard Fenoll v. Centre d’aide par le travail “La Jouvene” and Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon [2015-03-26]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2015, C-316/13.

Case of IH v. MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt. [2023-03-02]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2023, C-477/21.

Case of K. L. v. X sp. z o.o. [2023-03-30]. Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella, 2023, C-715/20.

Case of K. L. v. X sp. z o.o. [2024-02-20]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2024, C-715/20.

Case of M. H. Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986-02-26]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 1986, C-152/84.

Case of Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v. Tetsuji Shimizu [2018-11-06]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2018, C-684/16.

Case of Nagy Sándor and Others v. Hajdú-Bihar megyei Kormányhivatal and Others [2013-10-10]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2013, C-488/12.

Case of Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG [2010-01-19]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2010, C-555/07.

Case of Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Brossonn [2018-11-06]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2018, C-569/16 a C-570/16.

Case of Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry v. Hyvinvointialan liitto ry and Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v. Satamaoperaattorit ry [2019-11-19]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2019, C-609/17 a C-610/17.

Case of Ursula Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982-01-19]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 1982, C-8/81.

Case of Vera Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V. [2018-04-17]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2018, C-414/16.

Case of Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández and Others v. Reino de España (Subdelegación del Gobierno de España en Alicante) and Others [2014-07-10]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, C-198/13.

Case of Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm [2005-11-22]. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2005, C-144/04.

CECCHETTI, L. Something New under the Sun: The Direct Effect of Directives Plus Article 47 Charter in Horizontal Situations in the K. L. Judgment. Quaderni AISDUE [online]. 2024, n. 1, s. 297-309 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 2975-2698. Dostupné z: https://www.aisdue.eu/rivista-quaderni-aisdue-fasc-n-1-2024/.

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work Concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. OJ EC L 175, 1999-07-10, s. 43-48.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation. OJ EC L 303, 2000-12-02, s. 16-22.

Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a General Framework for Informing and Consulting Employees in the European Community – Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Employee Representation. OJ EC L 80, 2002-03-23, s. 29-34.

Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning Certain Aspects of the Organisation of Working Time. OJ EU L 299, 2003-11-18, s. 9-19.

Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union. OJ EU L 186, 2019-07-11, s. 105-121.

Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Work-life Balance for Parents and Carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU. OJ EU L 188, 2019-07-12, s. 79-93.

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the Protection of Persons Who Report Breaches of Union Law. OJ EU L 305, 2019-11-26, s. 17-56.

Field of Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In: Court of Justice of the European Union [online]. 2021. 23 s. [cit. 2025-02-18]. Dostupné z: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1043150/en/.

FOREJTOVÁ, M. a P. MÁDR. Článek 51. In: M. TOMÁŠEK, V. ŠMEJKAL, et al. Smlouva o fungování EU: Smlouva o EU: Listina základních práv EU: Komentář. 1. vyd. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2022, s. 1636-1641. ISBN 978-80-7676-508-5.

FRANTZIOU, E. Case C-176/12 Association de Médiation Sociale: Some Reflections on the Horizontal Effect of the Charter and the Reach of Fundamental Employment Rights in the European Union. European Constitutional Law Review [online]. 2014, vol. 10, no. 2, s. 332-348 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 1744-5515. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019614001205.

FRANTZIOU, E. Paid Annual Leave and Collective Agreements after the TSN Judgment (C-609/17 and C-610/17). In: The EU Law Live Blog [online]. 2019-11-22 [cit. 2025-02-18]. Dostupné z: https://eulawlive.com/blog/2019/11/22/paid-annual-leave-and-collective-agreements-after-the-tsn-judgment-c-609-17-and-c-610-17/.

GALLNER, I. Richtlinie 2003/88/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 4. November 2003 über bestimmte Aspekte der Arbeitszeitgestaltung. In: M. FRANZEN, I. GALLNER a H. OETKER, Hrsg. Kommentar zum europäischen Arbeitsrecht. 5. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck, 2024, s. 1545-1664. ISBN 978-3-406-79377-6.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OJ EU C 326, 2012-10-26, s. 391-407.

KOUKIADAKI, A. Application (Article 51) and Limitations (Article 52(1)). In: F. DORSSEMONT, K. LÖRCHER, S. CLAUWAERT a M. SCHMITT, eds. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Employment Relation. 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2019, s. 101-134. ISBN 978-1-5099-2265-9.

KOVÁCS, E. Ein europäisches Grundrecht auf Kündigungsschutz: Art. 30 GRC. 1. Aufl. Wien: Manz, 2002. 594 s. ISBN 978-3-214-02539-7.

KUNERTOVÁ, T. Právo EU pro praxi: Aplikační a výkladová úskalí v kontextu případových studií. 1. vyd. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2024. 220 s. ISBN 978-80-7676-843-7.

LOURENÇO, L. Religion, Discrimination and the EU General Principles’ Gospel: Egenberger. Common Market Law Review [online]. 2019, vol. 56, no. 1, s. 193-208 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 1875-8320. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2019008.

Metodika k přímé aplikovatelnosti směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2019/1937 ze dne 23. října 2019 o ochraně osob, které oznamují porušení práva Unie. In: Ministerstvo spravedlnosti [online]. 2021. 38 s. [cit. 2025-02-18]. Dostupné z: https://oznamovatel.justice.cz/pravni-uprava-a-metodicke-doporuceni/.

MUIR, E. The Horizontal Effects of Charter Rights Given Expression to in EU Legislation, from Mangold to Bauer. Review of European Administrative Law [online]. 2019, vol. 12, no. 2, s. 185-215 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 1874-7973. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819×15840066091312.

PICHRT, J. a V. HANZAL. Několik poznámek k diskusi na téma „propuštění zaměstnance bez udání důvodu“. Právní rozhledy. 2024, roč. 32, č. 9, s. 296-301. ISSN 1210-6410.

RANDLOVÁ, N. a V. KALINA. Zhodnocení rozporu zákoníku práce a české pracovněprávní judikatury s právem EU a judikaturou Soudního dvora EU. Práce a mzda. 2023, roč. 71, č. 3, s. 29-42. ISSN 0032-6208.

RIESENHUBER, K. European Employment Law: A Systematic Exposition. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2021. 1013 s. Ius Communitatis, vol. 4. ISBN 978-1-83970-151-1.

Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu České republiky ze dne 5. 12. 2024, sp. zn. 3 As 309/2023.

SCHLACHTER, M. Drittwirkung von Grundrechten der EU-Grundrechtecharta. Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht [online]. 2019, Jg. 18, Nr. 2, s. 53-58 [cit. 2025-02-18]. ISSN 1868-7938. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-7938.2019.02.04.

Sněmovní tisk 775: Novela zákona – zákoník práce – EU. In: Poslanecká sněmovna Parlamentu České republiky [online]. 2024-08-27 [cit. 2025-02-18]. Dostupné z: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=9&t=775.

ŠLOSARČÍK, I. Expanze doktríny přímého účinku směrnic: kauza Kücükdeveci. Jurisprudence. 2010, roč. 19, č. 2, s. 32-38. ISSN 1212-9909.

ŠTEFKO, M. Výpověď bez uvedení důvodu, možné příklady inspirace. Právní rozhledy. 2024, roč. 32, č. 9, s. 291-296. ISSN 1210-6410.

UNSELD, Ch. Effektiver Rechtsschutz jenseits von effet utile? – Art. 47 GRCh stärkt den Zugang zum Recht. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht. 2024, Jg. 35, Nr. 12, s. 556-559. ISSN 0937-7204.

VÁCHA, J. a N. RANDLOVÁ. Více pracovněprávních vztahů zaměstnance u stejného zaměstnavatele: rozsudek Nejvyššího soudu v rozporu se závěry Soudního dvora EU. Práce a mzda. 2023, roč. 71, č. 7-8, s. 7-13. ISSN 0032-6208.

Zákon č. 262/2006 Sb., zákoník práce, ve znění pozdějších předpisů.