''Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions'' (2007
C-278/05
is a

UK insolvency law United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the ...

and

labour law Labour laws (also known as labor laws or employment laws) are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, ...

case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.

Facts

Robins had been employed by a now insolvent company. He had a final salary pension. The company terminated the scheme and then told everyone there was not enough money to cover members’ benefits. They announced they would reduce benefits for members who had not yet started to receive pension payments. Robins claimed compensation from the Secretary of State for not providing the proper level of social protection under Directive 80/987 art 8. David Pannick QC was acting for the government. The High Court asked the ECJ whether the member state needed to fund a scheme that had run out of money, and whether the UK had properly transposed the Directive. If not, should the UK incur liability?

Judgment

Judge Timmermans in the ECJ held that the member state did not require pension funds should be fully guaranteed, because the member state could oblige insurers to buy insurance. However, Robins would gain benefits as low as 20% of entitlement, so the UK's scheme under the

Pensions Act 2004 The Pensions Act 2004 (c 35) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to improve the running of pension schemes. Background In the years following the introduction of the Pensions Act 1995, it was widely perceived that it was failing t ...

section 286 (establishing the Financial Assistance Scheme) did not ‘protect’ workers like Robins within the meaning of art 8, so the provision was improperly implemented. A Member State's liability was contingent on a finding of manifest and grave disregard by that state for the limits set on its discretion, '' Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany''.

996 Year 996 ( CMXCVI) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Japan * February - Chotoku Incident: Fujiwara no Korechika and Takaie shoot an arrow at Retired Em ...

QB 404 (C-46/93) To answer what that meant the national court would have to take into account the clarity and precision of art 8 with regard to the level of protection required, as well as the measure of discretion left to the national authorities.

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References

* United Kingdom company case law United Kingdom labour case law Court of Justice of the European Union case law 2007 in case law 2007 in British law Department for Work and Pensions European Union labour case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes

References