Köbler v Austria [2003]

European Law

Köbler v Austria
‘The Professor’ by Pino Daeni

art.48 EC and liability for breach of Community law by a Supreme Court, form the basis of an indirect dissemination case, when having worked as an Austrian university professor for over a decade, the claimant sought an application for a conditional length-of-service salary increment available to those serving for a period of fifteen years or more. 

While the terms of this benefit expressed that any qualifying employment must occur within Austria, the claimant applied on grounds that his employment had been within the European Community, therefore refusal for inclusion constituted indirect discrimination under art.48 EC (freedom of movement for workers) (now art.39 EC) and Regulation 1612/68/EEC (freedom of workers within the Community).

Following a rejection by the deciding authorities under para.50(a) of the 1956 Salary Law his claim was brought before the Verwaltungsgerictschof (Supreme Administrative Court), where despite his citing discrimination under Community law, insufficient clarity led to a preliminary ruling request under art.234EC, however the application for preliminary ruling was later withdrawn and judgment made against the claimant on grounds that the salary increments were tantamount to bonuses, and were thereby  exempt from the protection of art.48 EC.

In response the claimant instead sought compensation in the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (State Court) for the loss of earnings arising from a national judgment which stood contrary to the effects of art.48 EC, while the respondents opposed the claim on grounds that the decision of a Supreme Court does not provide for State liability where proven unlawful, yet despite this the court agreed to seek a preliminary ruling and so asked:

1. Did a breach of Community law by a national court apply to all courts? 

2. If such a breach was applicable to a Supreme Court did the classification of a special length-of-service benefit under an employee bonus constitute a breach of art.48 EC?

3. Did the effects of art.48 EC enable individual claims before a national court? 

4. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction enough to answer the questions raised, or did the State Court need to pass judgment?

Upon which the European Court of Justice held that:

1. Irrespective of arguments for the narrowness of Community law upon Member State judiciaries, the findings in Francovich and others v Italy and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame had clearly established the liability for reparation by Member States to individual claims, and that such scope included the courts when categorising public authorities.

2. The nature of the breach was vital to the right to individual remedy and while excusable (or inexcusable) errors weigh heavily on the the burden of liability, the circumstances of this claim required little adjudication other than recognition of a clear violation of art.48 EC through the withdrawal of a reference to the Court.

3. With regard to the damage caused by the breach it was held that evidence of the breach constituted sufficient grounds for damages payable by the State under individual claim, and that such reparation must come from domestic legislation provided it offered equal rights as prescribed under the Treaty.

4. As with any preliminary ruling it was not for the Court to determine the method of legal summation, but to simply to advise how best to serve the principles of Community law. 

Thus the Court held that on this occasion it was the duty of the state courts to review and establish the appropriate measure for compensation through the existing case law provided, while further reminding the parties that:

“[M]anifest breach by a Supreme Court of an obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling is, in itself, capable of giving rise to State liability.”

Foster v British Gas [1986]

European Law

Foster v British Gas [1986]
‘British Gas Works on the River Spree’ by Adolf Meckel von Hemsbach

In the same way that Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority [No.1] determined the rights of female employees under the protections of Directive 76/207/EEC, this class action matter extended its scope to allow damages for dismissal under the guise of retirement.

When six former workers were subjected to forced retirement at the age of sixty, they sought remedy through the industrial tribunals on grounds that the respondent had violated its obligation to observe the Directive’s principles of equality, and thus they were entitled to compensatory payment in lieu of their significant financial losses.

In the first instance the appellants claims were dismissed on the strength that since 1986 the British Gas Corporation had become a private entity, and therefore it fell beyond the scope of the Directive, while a subsequent appeal to both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal proved futile.

Undeterred, the appellants presented their case to the House of Lords, who sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice under art.177 EC, whereupon two questions asked: 

1. Whether the manifestation of British Gas Plc (at the time of the claim) was within the terms of the meaning “state”? 

2. And if so, what form the award might take? 

Having evaluated the facts, the House held that when Directive 76/207/EEC first came into force it was ignored by the United Kingdom and subsequently failed to become part of domestic legislation within the provided timeframe, therefore the respondents were state owned and thereby subject to the terms of the Gas Act 1972, while the state’s failure to transpose the terms of the Directive left it open to the Community law doctrine that ‘no state can profit from its own failure’.

This resulted in a judgment for the appellants on grounds that the terms of the Directive were fully applicable to the respondents as they qualified as an emanation of the state and were subject to the effects provided under it, while the Court reminded the parties that:

“[T]he State may not benefit from its default in respect of anything that lies within the sphere of responsibility which by its own free choice it has taken upon itself, irrespective of the person through whom that responsibility is exercised.”

Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984]

European Law

 

Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
‘The Prisoner’ by Jean-Leon Gerome

Sexual discrimination and the right to enforce Directive 76/207/EEC when applying for a position was unprecedented within the European Community, and so when two well-qualified female social workers applied for similar posts at the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (a male populated prison) and were refused employment on grounds of their gender, the Arbeitsgericht Hamm (German Labour Court) referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice under art.177 EC. 

Having referred to the principles of Directive 76/207/EEC governing equal access to employment, training, promotion and working conditions, the claimants contended that denial of this particular post was tantamount to a breach of Member State obligations and that legal remedy should constitute either six months full pay or the creation of another position within the offer of employment. 

However German law had been amended to incorporate the Directive measures with a degree of discretion, inasmuch as proof of sexual discrimination within the recruitment process only provided resulting sanctions as one incurring travel costs and not those allowing compensatory damages or the employment provision sought. 

This led to the formulation of five interrelated questions, and which asked:

1. Whether under breach of the anti-discrimination Directive, was the employer liable to provide for, and offer, employment to those parties affected? 

2. If so, was it on grounds that the claimant could provide evidence of greater qualification than those required for the position applied for?

3. Was equal competence acceptable as grounds for the provision of additional employment, or was the claimant entitled to employment irrespective of qualifying ability? 

4. Did Directive 76/207/EEC provide clear instruction as to the form of remedy awarded where discrimination occurred, but no employment was required? 

5. Could the terms of the Directive be relied upon by an individual when the discrimination was between private individuals?

When examining the exactness of the Directive it was held by the European Court of Justice that while the effects of Community law and transposition of those Directives must observe and follow the principles expressed, where discriminatory acts are proven, the Commission did not intend that an employer was imposed with any obligation to create positions beyond those advertised. 

Thus in terms of legal clarity, the Court held that further national debate was needed in order to amend the legislation in line with a fair and balanced level of compensation, while it was also held that the terms of the Directive were too ambiguous as to offer individual powers to enforce against another party where such provisions were not already in place, before reminding the parties that:

“[D]irective No.76/207 does not require discrimination on grounds of sex regarding access to employment to be made the subject of a sanction by way of an obligation imposed upon the employer who is the author of the discrimination to conclude a contract of employment with the candidate discriminated against.”

Alaska Packers Association v. Domenico (1902)

US Contract Law

Alaska Packers Association v Domenico
Image: ‘Fishing Boats’ by Dusan Djukaric

The legal enforcement of a binding contract requires consideration to both bargaining parties, and so on this occasion, the demands of an established labour force prove their undoing when overlooking the fundamental principles of any written agreement.

In 1900, a commercial fishing enterprise recruited the services of a number of seamen and deck hands for the purposes of catching salmon. Before departing San Francisco, the now appellants accepted and signed individual employment contracts, on grounds that they would be paid between $50-$60 per person, with two additional cents for every salmon caught.

After docking in Alaska a month later, the men ceased working and demanded that the ship’s superintendent pay them $100 each, or risk losing them entirely. With no means with which to replace them, and after failing to placate their objections, the superintendent agreed to pay the increased sums, after which duplicate contracts were printed and signed before the local Shipping Commissioner, despite the superintendent stressing that he was unauthorised to endorse the new contracts.

Upon return to San Francisco, the appellants demanded their increased payments, however the respondent employers refused to acknowledge anything other than the original contract, and so litigation was bought against them on grounds that the fishing nets supplied were defective, and therefore counter to their chances of earning extra money, as per the original agreement.

The Northern California District Court took issue with the principles of the appellants claims, as to provide defective nets would by effect, have reduced the employers profits and subsequent means of operation, therefore it was held that refusal to perform the contract was unlawful, however the court also held that:

Under such circumstances, it would be strange, indeed, if the law would not permit the defendant to waive the damages caused by the libelants’ breach, and enter into the contract sued upon, a contract mutually beneficial to all the parties thereto, in that it gave to the libelants reasonable compensation for their labor, and enabled the defendant to employ to advantage the large capital it had invested in its canning and fishing plant.”

At which point judgment was made in favour of the appellants, despite glaring disparities of fact.

Upon further challenge, the court of appeals drew reference to the statements made by the superintendent, and noted that any contract entered into under duress, and without due consideration was, without question, unenforceable, as had been outlined in King v. Railway Co. where the court ruled that:

“No astute reasoning can change the plain fact that the party who refuses to perform, and thereby coerces a promise from the other party to the contract to pay him an increased compensation for doing that which he is legally bound to do, takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party.”

And so therefore:

“There can be no consideration for the promise of the other party, and there is no warrant for inferring that the parties have voluntarily rescinded or modified their contract. The promise cannot be legally enforced, although the other party has completed his contract in reliance upon it.”

Thus it was for this simple and perhaps obvious reason, that the appeal was dismissed and judgment reversed back in favour of the respondents.

Aldinger v. Howard (1976)

US Civil Procedure

Aldinger v Howard
Image: ‘Spokane Skyline’ by Pablo Romero

Litigation for loss of earnings through discriminatory dismissal is a linear process within state jurisdiction, however when the employer is a federal representative, the rules according to civil suits are subject to close examination.

Having enjoyed work as a cleric within the Spokane County Treasury, the claimant was dismissed under s.36.16.070 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which grants that:

“The officer appointing a deputy or other employee shall be responsible for the acts of his or her appointees upon his or her official bond and may revoke each appointment at pleasure.”

Under a claim in the district court, the now appellant argued that dismissal merely for living with her boyfriend was a violation of the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that under the circumstances, the Treasury was equally liable under 42 USC § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which provides that:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…”

It was for these reasons that an injunction was requested against the appointing officer and his wife, while the county was deemed subject to vicarious liability through the misconduct of the two named employees, both of which claims were brought under the powers of 28 USC § 1343(3), which explains that the district courts are required:

“(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States…”

When first heard, the court held that Spokane County could not be held liable as a ‘person’ and therefore no suit could be brought against them, after which the appellant sought relief through the court of appeals, who with reference to 28 USC § 1343(3), upheld the previous decision, however when taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, greater detail was paid to the doctrine of both ‘pendent’ and ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction, upon which the ruling in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs determined how the former provided that:

“[S]tate and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is Power in federal courts to hear the whole.”

While the latter was outlined in Fulton Bank v. Hozier, when it was held how:

“The general rule is that when a federal court has properly acquired jurisdiction over a cause, it may entertain, by intervention, dependent or ancillary controversies; but no controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court’s possession or control by the principal suit.”

However, on this occasion both approaches ran counter to the principle held in the appeals court that:

“[F]ederal courts should be wary of extending court-created doctrines of jurisdiction to reach parties who are expressly excluded by Congress from liability, and hence federal jurisdiction…”

This translated that while art. III of the Federal Constitution allowed the Supreme Court to vest adjudicatory powers to the lower courts, the conflicting principles of both 42 USC § 1983 and that of the appeals court prevented the Court from allowing a mergence of the two claims, despite their obvious connectivity, and which resulted in dismissal of the appeal while holding that:

“[A]s against a plaintiff’s claim of additional power over a “pendent party,” the reach of the statute conferring jurisdiction should be construed in light of the scope of the cause of action as to which federal judicial power has been extended by Congress.”