Last October Joshua Rozenberg reported in The Guardian that a recent case concerning Moroccan workers in diplomatic missions in London resulted in failed claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and breaches of the Working Time Regulations because the employers were able to claim state immunity. I commented about the case last November.
It has now emerged that the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, intends to use the case as a way of challenging “creeping” increases in the influence of EU law in British cases. It is part of the Tories’ wider campaign to be seen to be taking a strong line on Europe in the run up to elections and in the face of what is regarded as a significant challenge from UKIP.
While much is made of the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in the context of immigration cases, these decisions only have to be taken into account by courts in the UK. However legal practitioners, particularly in the field of employment law, have been dealing with the direct application of European law for decades. Cases are often referred to the European Court for guidance and decisions of the European Court can be directly applied in employment cases in England and Wales.
The crucial difference is that some claims can be brought based on the direct application of EU law. That happens with claims, such as these, based on the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, enshrined in UK law by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Significantly these rights would remain even if the UK withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights.
What has caused particular political concern is that EU Charter rights can even trump UK statutes, so that as I pointed out in November’s article domestic courts are required to disapply rules of domestic law which are incompatible with them, even in a dispute between private litigants. That was the dilemma noted “with discomfort” by Mr Justice Langstaff in Janah v Libya.
Mr Grayling is adamant that EU law must not be allowed to override UK statute law and he will announce this week that he has found a test case that he can use to challenge recent decisions in this regard. That case is Janah
