Health has been an important theme in the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the last month.

In case C-333/14, in a reference arising from a challenge brought by the Scotch Whisky Association, the court considered legislation introducing a minimum price per unit of alcohol, which had the objective of protecting human life and health by reducing the hazardous consumption of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol more generally.

The court considered that the effect of the legislation was to significantly restrict the market, which could be avoided by introducing a tax measure designed to increase the price of alcohol, while allowing traders to determine their own selling price.

The task of determining whether the proposed legislation was justified or if the objectives could be achieved through less restrictive means was referred back to the national court.

Also enacted with a view to promoting health, the EU tobacco directive of 2014 introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, a future EU-wide prohibition on menthol cigarettes and special rules for e-cigarettes was considered to be lawful in the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in a series of challenges brought by Poland, Philip Morris and others.

In the view of the Advocate General, the EU legislature did not exceed the considerable latitude it enjoyed in ensuring that tobacco and related products may be placed on the market under uniform conditions throughout the EU, without losing sight of the fundamental objective of a high level of health protection.

It remains to be seen whether the court will follow this approach.

Meanwhile, in Case C-180/14, the Court of Justice found Greece in violation of its obligation to ensure a maximum weekly working time for doctors, which the court described as a rule of European Union social law of particular importance, since it was a minimum requirement necessary to ensure the protection of safety and health.

Also relevant to workers is the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Barbulescu v Romania. Here it was held that an employer has, in certain circumstances, the right to read and access information that is sent by an employee during their working hours.

There is no suggestion that employers have unlimited access to personal messages sent by employees during office hours and the employee in the case was using a company computer to send personal messages while at work, in direct contravention of a well-advertised and well-known company policy.

The use of purely personal mobile devices appears to be generally safe from employer scrutiny, for now. While Ireland is not bound by the decisions of the ECHR, courts must take due account of them.

Away from the courts, the EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management announced an aid package of €77 million for the Horn of Africa during a visit on January 21st to Dadaab refugee camp, the largest in the world with 350,000 refugees.

Meanwhile, against the background of the terrorist bombings in Paris in November, the European Counter-Terrorism Centre was launched in Amsterdam on January 25th.

This article by Aileen Murtagh and Catherine Donnelly BL, members of the Irish Society for European Law, was published in the Irish Times on Friday 6 February 2016

There were developments in September in relation to the European Law obligation on airlines to pay compensation where a flight is delayed or cancelled.

A European Court of Justice judgment on September 17th, in a case arising from a claim for €600 from KLM because of a 29-hour delay, reinforces consumer rights.

KLM had argued that it was not obliged to pay compensation under European Law as an exception for “extraordinary circumstances” applied to the delay. The delay arose from an unforeseen technical problem which was not identified by general maintenance checks and tests. The court held that unforeseen technical problems were part and parcel of the daily business of an air carrier and as such could not be deemed “extraordinary” and on that basis compensation for the delay was payable to passengers.

On September 24th, shortly after the Volkswagen emissions scandal emerged, the European Commission made a statement calling for full disclosure, zero tolerance and strict compliance with EU rules on pollutant emissions. The commission called on all EU member states to carry out national investigations and report back to them. It announced that a new Real Driving Emission (RDE) test procedure would be phased in from early 2016.

The recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Tyco case on September 10th could have far-reaching effects in Ireland for employers whose staff do not have a fixed place of work.

The case addressed the question of whether time spent travelling between home and individual clients for such employees constitutes “working time” or “rest period” under the Organisation of Working Time Directive, and whether benefits accordingly accrue in respect of that time. The court came to the conclusion that travelling time must be included in “working time” since the employer determines the place where the employee should be and the employee remains at the employer’s disposal.

While this judgment may not immediately impact private employers, it would appear that this case could have significant broader implications for public bodies who are directly bound by this judgment. Not only would this mean that travelling time would be included in “working time”, but many other employees who do not have a fixed place of work, including a wide range of health care workers, could be affected by this judgment.

This article by Elaine Davis and Joanne Finn, members of the Irish Society for European Law, was published in the Irish Times on Friday, 16 October, 2015.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/eu-law-update-travelling-time-is-working-time-1.2391466

© 2015 irishtimes.com