By Prof Albert Sanchez-Graells, Professor of Economic Law and Member of the Centre for Health, Law, and Society (University of Bristol Law School)
On 30 September, the Centre for Health, Law, and Society had the honour of hosting an excellent panel of speakers for a webinar on ‘Healthcare procurement and commissioning during Covid-19: reflections and (early) lessons’. The speakers provided short presentations on a host of very complementary issues surrounding the reaction of NHS procurement and commissioning to the COVID-19 challenges. The ensuing discussion brought to light a number of general themes that are, by and large, aligned with the worries that others and I had expressed at the outset of the pandemic*, and a number of challenges that will shape the readjustment or reregulation of NHS procurement and commissioning in the medium and long term.
This blogpost initially provides some brief notes on the most salient points made by the speakers in their presentations, which do not aim to be exhaustive. It then goes on to offer my own reflections and views on what lessons can be extracted from the procurement and commissioning reaction to the first wave of Covid-19, which do not necessarily represent those of the panel of speakers. (more…)
By Prof John Coggon, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School)
Legal and policy responses to COVID-19 rest on and express the balance of different basic values and principles. Earlier and current regulatory approaches bring into sharp relief how liberty must be understood and weighed against other values. This is for the sake of liberty itself, but crucially too for other compelling aspects of social justice.
Emergency powers and pandemic ethics
COVID-19 is a global problem, albeit one that governments across the world have been approaching differently. Over the past weeks we have seen fast changes in policies as different countries have sought to anticipate and respond to the extraordinary scale of the challenges that we face and which lie ahead. (more…)
By Dr Jule Mulder, Lecturer in Law (University of Bristol Law School).*
This blog post provides a case comment of AG Bobek’s Opinion C-143/16 in Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro delivered 23 March 2017. This comment was first published on EUtopia law on April 7, 2017 and is reproduced here with thanks.
The case is concerned with the conformity of Italian law on on-call contracts with the EU principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age. Antonino Bordonaro was employed under an on-call contract (similar to a zero-hour contract) by Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl on a permanent basis. Upon his 25th birthday Mr Bordonaro was dismissed due to the fact that he no longer complied with the conditions for the intermittent contract, as laid down by Article 34(2) Legislative Decree No 276/2003 applicable at the time he was hired.
The (now repealed) Italian law in question provided special arrangements regarding access to and dismissal from on-call contracts for some workers. While on-call contracts under Italian law are usually subject to objective reasons and certain conditions, the provision allowed for such contract to be offered ‘in any event’ to workers under the age of 25 or above the age of 45. At the time of Mr Bordonaro’s dismissal, Article 34(2) had been modified. The older age bracket was lifted from 45 to 55 years of age. Moreover it was specified that an on-call contract can ‘in any event’ be concluded ‘with a person under 24 years of age, on the understanding […] that the contractual service must be performed before the age of 25 is reached’. The modified provision thus allowed automatic termination of permanent on-call contracts with younger workers once they reached the age of 25, in addition to allowing more flexibility regarding younger and older workers’ exposure to on-call contracts.
Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court of Cassation (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) identified the direct and clear reference to age in Article 34 as potentially problematic and asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to rule on its compatibility with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age in Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the EU Charter. (more…)