Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  overriding mandatory rules
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article raises issues concerning legal basis for the application of the overriding mandatory rules. In the Polish doctrine there are two opposing concepts in terms of explanation of the legal grounds for application of overriding mandatory rules. Both theories do not have a universal dimension, in the sense that they do not sufficiently explain the basis for the application of domestic as well as foreign overriding mandatory rules, being part of lex causae or coming from a third state. The article presents arguments for and against the possibility of deriving the legal grounds for application of the overriding mandatory rules, with reference to submissions made to that effect in literature. The author makes also an attempt to formulate a concept complementary to the concept of an integrated conflict-of-law rule with the substantive law rule, boiling down to the assumption that the basis for application of overriding mandatory rule is a second degree conflict of laws rule allowing to apply a first degree conflict of laws rule integrated with the substantive rule.
EN
Czech labour law provides enhaced legal protection to an employee as the weaker contractual party in order to balance out the factual inequality of the relationship between employee and employer. Nevertheless, in the case of cross-border employment contracts situations may occur, where such protection could be lost. European Union law therefore grants protection to an employee as the weaker party from the socio-economic perspective by providing specific, so-called materialized conflict of law rules that enforce the application of protective mandatory rules and the special rules on jurisdiction on the basis of which jurisdiction may be transferred in favor of an employee and which limit the forums in which an employee may be sued. Overriding mandatory rules as general institute provided for in Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation also serve to protect of an employee. Legal regulation of the international jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment has undergone significant changes by adoption of the Brussels Ibis Regulation that since 10 January 2015 replaced original Brussels I Regulation. The paper reflects these changes and presents relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the ambit of employment disputes. The aim of this paper is to analyze the protective function of the conflict of law rules contained in the Rome I Regulation and the special rules on jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment regulated in the Brussels Ibis Regulation and to assess whether these instruments are eligible to ensure the protection of an employee as the weaker party.
CS
České pracovní právo poskytuje zaměstnanci, který je považován za slabší smluvní stranu, zvýšenou právní ochranu za účelem vyrovnání faktické nerovnosti vztahu mezi zaměstnancem a zaměstnavatelem. Nicméně v případě uzavírání přeshraničních pracovních smluv mohou nastat situace, za nichž by tato ochrana mohla být ztracena. Právo Evropské unie proto zaměstnanci jako straně ze sociálně-ekonomického pohledu slabší poskytuje ochranu prostřednictvím zvláštních, tzv. materializovaných kolizních norem, které vynucují aplikaci ochranných kogentních norem, a speciálních pravidel o příslušnosti, na jejichž základě může být ve prospěch zaměstnance přenesena soudní příslušnost a která omezují místa sudiště, v nichž může být zaměstnanec žalován. K ochraně zaměstnance rovněž slouží tzv. imperativní normy jako obecný institut upravený v článku 9 Nařízení Řím I.Právní úprava mezinárodní příslušnosti v oblasti individuálních pracovních smluv doznala významných změn přijetím Nařízení Brusel Ibis, které od 10. Ledna 2015 nahradilo původní Nařízení Brusel I. Příspěvek reflektuje tyto změny a uvádí významné judikáty Soudního dvora Evropské unie v oblasti pracovněprávních sporů. Cílem předkládaného článku je analyzovat ochrannou funkci kolizních norem obsažených v Nařízení Řím I a speciálních pravidel o příslušnosti ve věcech individuálních pracovních smluv upravených v Nařízení Brusel Ibis a vyhodnotit, nakolik jsou tyto instrumenty způsobilé zajistit ochranu zaměstnanci jako slabší straně.
EN
The article confronts the unilateral and multilateral methods in private international law. The author first identifies the basic differences between the two. She then moves to describe the instruments and concepts resulting from the unilateral method: the theories of the Statutists in the period between 12th to 19th centuries, the solutions offered by the so called new American school, the method of recognition of private situations crystallized in a foreign legal system,  the rules governing the spatial scope of the EU provisions, including the regulations and the directives, and finally the paradigm of the overriding mandatory rules. The second part of the paper provides a comment to the Nikiforidis case. The author makes a number of critical remarks with respect to the restrictive and rigid interpretation of Article 9(3) adopted by the CJEU. The argument is made that the more flexible and functional approach proposed by the Attorney General Maciej Szpunar in his Opinion should be preferred. Finally, the author makes her own proposition regarding the Nikiforidis case. She advocates a unilateral methodology that rejects the distinction between the overriding mandatory rules of the legis fori, legis causae and these of a third country.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.