High quality business and privacy legal counselling latest developments with Alexander Suliman, Stockholm: As a general rule, employment law in the EU tends to be less employer-friendly in the EU than in the US, with termination-at-will clauses not usually allowed and collective bargaining agreements common in some countries. While monitoring your business in the EU, ensure that your employment agreements are compliant with the local legislation as every EU Member State has its own set of rules regarding various aspects such as benefits, employment taxes, termination, and part-time working. Business immigration is a key topic in the EU as various companies are welcoming employees from other EU or third-party countries. You should consider what the options are for your US workers you would like to send in the EU and define the strategy and kind of support you want to provide to your staff and their families. Make sure you are aware of recent and upcoming legislative changes. For example, Belgium recently implemented the EU Single Permit Directive, containing a new set of rules rendering the administrative process for work permits less burdensome. Discover additional details at Alexander Suliman, Sweden.
The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. Let’s start with a content scanning order on the server. At first sight, a case can be made that such an order should be considered to compromise the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter. The ECJ in Schrems I considered that legislation permitting the public authorities access on a generalised basis to the content of communications compromises the essence of the right to privacy under the Charter (par. 94). Content scanning on the server arguably is a form of “access on a generalised basis”, where it involves an analysis of all communications going through the server connected to a certain app, and forwarding any matches to a designated center. At the same time, the ECHR in Big Brother Watch was more forgiving when it comes to powers of bulk interception of communications, as long as these powers are surrounded with sufficient safeguards (par. 350). Thus, one important point to be explored further, is whether this signals a rift between the two bodies, or that the ECJ will chart its own route when it comes to bulk surveillance.
The EU’s Cybersecurity Act, adopted in 2019, established the legal basis for EU-wide certification of cloud providers, to be elaborated through secondary law by its cybersecurity agency ENISA. In December 2020, ENISA began a public consultation as the first step towards a revised set of rules. A technical working group is preparing a proposal, expected to be presented to member state experts and to the European Commission thereafter. The new requirements could be finalized by the end of the year.
labour legal counseling advices with Alexander Suliman, Stockholm right now: After the parties are comfortable with the mediator and can express their concerns, and they can express proposals knowing that everything you do in mediation is confidential and can’t be used in a court, I find this is the best alternative. Sometimes in cases that are in a divorce, the court will refer the parties to what we call in-house custody, parenting time mediation, and they do a great job, and sometimes that settles the custody and parenting time issues, but sometimes they need more than what the court can offer, and sometimes there’s just no court case. The parties aren’t in a divorce, or it’s a post-divorce issue, so these types of cases are a perfect fit for mediation and a perfect fit to avoid the emotional and financial toll of litigation. Find additional info at https://nyheter24.se/noje/818158-svenske-alexander-ser-exakt-ut-som-harry-styles.
On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. With a decision that will become a landmark for domestic workers’ rights in the EU, the Court confirms the untapped potential of EU law in promoting domestic workers’ full coverage under labour law and social security systems, which will have significant implications in the promotion of domestic workers’ rights across the Union. The case originated in Spain in November 2019, when a domestic worker applied for paying contributions to cover the risk of unemployment, in order to acquire the right to the related benefits. However, her request was rejected by the Spanish General Social Security Fund (TGSS) because she was registered in the Special Social Security Scheme for Domestic Workers, which does not include protection in respect of unemployment.