Critical Contexts of Law - Essay Example

? Critical Contexts of Law Assignment 625 words What specific rights would be acquired by Karl or Gabrielle if they obtained European Union citizenship and how, if at all, could they acquire citizenship? Karl Kasparov had arrived in London in December 2000. He did not possess a passport of the European Union or a work permit to be employed in the countries of the EU. For this reason, he had to earn his living by working in different jobs available in the black ‘gang’ economy. There were two ways, by which Karl and his sister Gabrielle could have acquired a citizenship of the European Union (EU) a. By proving that either they or any of their ancestors were born in the EU b. By going through a Naturalization Process and obtaining a Residence Permit for living in a EU country under legal conditions However, Karl and Gabriel Kasparov hailed from Kazakhstan and thus could not have secured EU citizenship through their origin or family descent. Kazakhstan was not a member country of the EU, they would not have been entitled to the fundamental rights of the EU citizens. The only option available to them was the second method. Karl and sister Gabriel could acquire the rights of British citizenship following the process of naturalization, marital ties, the extension of awards or the expansion of business ties. They could have applied for a Residence Permit allowing them to live and work in the EU. For this, they would have been required to go through the process of Naturalization. This procedure would have required Karl and Gabriel to live and work in England legally (or any other EU country) for a considerable period of time. In this situation, Karl Kasparov chose to hide his actual identity in London and lived there assuming several fake identities. This would have created a hindrance in his application for the EU citizenship. Karl and Gabriel would have had to prove their legal identity during their stay in London from 2000-2008. Only then, they would have been eligible for applying for EU citizenship through the Naturalization process. After acquiring the EU citizenship, they would have been eligible to apply for a passport and a national identity proof of the EU. Thus, citizenship of the EU can be secured with the help of ‘birth, marriage, long-residency and family relations’.1 If Karl and Gabriel Kasparov had been successful in securing the citizenship of the EU, they would be granted certain basic rights. These privileges have been enumerated in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Karl and Gabriel would be accepted as citizens of the EU, without interfering with their nationality of Kazakhstan. They would have been permitted to reside, travel and earn their living in any of the 27 member countries of the Union. They would have been accorded the right to vote in the European municipality and parliamentary elections. As citizens of the EU, they would be protected by the diplomatic and consulate authorities of England as well as any other EU country. In case of any dispute, Karl and Gabriel could have approached the European Ombudsman seeking justice. These citizenship rights have been described in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In addition to this, Karl and Gabriel Kasparov would have been allowed to communicate with any EU institution in any of the official languages of the Union. They would have gained equal access to employment opportunities in the various Civil Services of the EU. Organizations in the EU would not be able to discriminate against them on the basis of their Kazakhstan nationality. In the event of any such unfair treatment, they would always have the provision of appealing to the European Justice Commission. In addition to these fundamental rights, the Lisbon Treaty empowered one million EU citizens to select any area of their interest and propose a related initiative to the European Commission. Following this treaty, Karl and Gabriel would be entitled to an innovative form of public participation along with the other European citizens. They would have had the right to approach the European Commission directly on any issue concerning their interest. 23 Assignment 2 (625 words) 2. Can anyone other than Charles claim legal title or interest in Bleak Hall? In 1990, Charles Mandox had purchased a huge mansion called Bleak Hall in Islington. Other than Charles himself, his wife Murial Mandox, his three daughters and his companion Bill Gates could claim a legal title to the Bleak Hall mansion according to the Property Law Act. The house would be considered as a non-marital property as Charles had bought it before his marriage to Muriel Waters. Thus, Muriel’s name was not supposed to be included in the property sale deed. However, Muriel Mandox and her three daughters would automatically become successors of Bleak Hall if Charles Mandox expired without specifying a particular will. According to the rules of the Intestacy of the Estates Act, Muriel and her children would gain the complete rights to the property in such a situation. Once the children reach the age of 18, they would eligible to draw interest from the trustee governing the property of Bleak Hall. Further, the story also conveys that Muriel Mandox was spending her own money (received as salary from the parliament) in bringing up her daughters in Bleak Hall. This indicated that she was bearing a part of the expenses that were incurred on account of residing in the house. This would automatically strengthen Muriel’s case in claiming a legal interest on Bleak Hall, which was originally the property of her husband. On the other hand, Bill Gates, the bartender of the London Colbert pub was the homosexual partner of Charles Maddox. He stayed permanently in Bleak Hall and pretended to be engaged in some repair work at the rear of the mansion. However, for Bill to have a legal claim on Bleak Hall, an agreement would be required to be written and signed by Charles Mandox to this effect. The Property Law Act specifies that only when the owner of the property signs a written agreement bequeathing a legal interest to a property in favor of another individual, the latter can exercise his claim over the property. However, the incident does not specify the writing of any such agreement. This indicates that under normal circumstances, Bill would not be entitled to an interest in Bleak Hall. There remains a possibility that Bill may claim a legal right to the property on the basis of rendering repairing services to the house. However, even this claim was unlikely to survive in front of the Courts of Law. According to the Property Law Act, there is another circumstance under which Bill could have claimed a right over Bleak Hall. If he could have proved that he paid regular mortgage payments to Charles in return of his stay at the house, then he would be entitled to a share of the property. In the event of his nonpayment, he would not be able to prove his claim on the property. Further, Bill was only in an informal relationship with Charles Mandox which had not been sanctified by marriage rights. In such a case, Bill Gate’s legal claim on the property of Bleak Hall would be decided according to the arguments of Property Law, similar to the Burns case. Therefore, according to the Property Acts Law, except Charles Mandox, his wife Muriel Mandox, his three daughters and his companion Bill Gates could lay an interest or claim to the property of Bleak Hall. Assignment 3 (1250 words) 3. In the event of his dismissal from the pub, would Bill be able to make out a successful case for unfair dismissal in an Employment tribunal? In this case, Bill Gates, hailing from Grimsby, had spent the major part of his life drifting from one job to another. He had dropped out from school without acquiring any formal educational qualifications.He seemed to have fewer rights than an ordinary British citizen. He did not appear to have the right of owning any property in the country or asking for a wage in return for any of his services. At present, he was employed as a bartender at the Colbert pub. Bill was not punctual at his job and also sometimes even displayed his indisciplined traits. The area manager had to tolerate his occasional alcoholic binges.In return Bill was paid a meager salary including his tips and overtime payments. Together they just about amounted to the minimum wage of a laborer. Under these circumstances, Bill Gates had every possibility of being dismissed by his manager from serving at the Colbert pub. In such a case, Bill can always approach an Employment tribunal seeking justice. He can lodge a complaint against his area manager for unfairly terminating his services in the pub. Such employment tribunals have existed since the 1960s for settling cases of dispute in industrial organizations. Earlier, they were known as industrial tribunals. These tribunals are actually forums for resolving cases of dispute that arise between the employees and their employers during the course of the employment relationship. For this, Bill would not be required to approach any Court of Law. The employment tribunals in the European Union acted independently of the country’s formal judiciary system and were not governed by the jurisdiction of the Courts. Thus, it would be sufficient for Bill approach the tribunal independently with his case. The employment tribunal would attempt to treat both the parties involved in an equal footing. The financial disparity between Bill and his manager would cease to matter in this case. After submitting his case to the tribunal, Bill would be required to go through the investigation procedure of the forum. This would be conducted by three members: a legally qualified employment judge and two wing members. One of wing members would be inducted from the management of the Colbert pub while the other member would be representing the workers of the pub. This would bring a degree of impartiality to the proceedings of the case. The wing members would ensure that the arguments of Bill and his Manager are equally represented in front of the judge. The case would usually be conducted in front of the public.4 The employment tribunal would consider the dismissal case of Bill Gates in the context of the European Employment Law. Both the parties involved will have their arguments to defend themselves and accuse the opposite party in the case. Bill was likely to claim that he had been forcibly dismissed from his job by his manager without giving him any prior notice. This would be his main compliant regarding the case. In addition to this, Bill could also declare that hisjob as the bartender of the Colbert pub was a form of exploitative employment.While he was made to work for long hours, he was given a meager overtime amount and some little associated tips. Overall his salary amounted to a paltry sum of money, almost as little as the minimum wage of a laborer.In spite of such poor working conditions, he was pursuing his job diligently. However, his manager’s decision to discontinue his services abruptly had come as a shock. Bill was now stranded with no gainful employment to support his living in London.For this reason, he had approached the employment tribunal to seek for an answer to his case. On the other hand, Bill’s area manager of the Colbert Pub would also have his side of the story to present to the tribunal. In all probability, he would accuse Bill of being an indisciplined employee, who rarely adhered to the timing of his duties. Bill had earned a reputation of not being punctual with respect to his job. The Manager would also portray Bill as an irresponsible worker. In addition to providing bartending services to the customers of the pub, Bill would often indulge in alcoholic binges by himself. As his supervising authority, he had tolerated Bill’s indisciplined ways for long enough and refused to put up with them any longer. That is why he had decided to dismiss him from his job. Being one of the management authorities of the Colbert pub, he was empowered to take such a decision in the larger interest of the business. The Council of European Communitieshave formulated certain provisions for the people employed in the institutions and organizations of EU. These provisions offer increased protection to the employees against possible violation of their employment rights. These have also been created to lend a greater transparency to the ongoing labor market activities. The EU also requires all its member countries to follow certain laws related to dismissals of employees – also known as collective redundancies. In 1975, the Union had passed the EU Directive 98/59/EC to this effect. Employers of firms planning collective dismissals of employees are required to adhere to certain norms according to this Directive. Such collective redundancies are defined in different ways across the different EU member states. Usually, this refers to terminating a group of 20 or more employees during a period of three months. Sometimes, it also involves dismissing less than 10 per cent of the workforce or a group of 30 employees over a period of one month. The employer is required to implement certain obligatory procedures before he proceed with his plan of dismissals. He is required to provide the employee representatives (trade unions in case of firms) with definite information regarding the collective redundancies. These include the reason for employee dismissals, the number of employees to be discontinued, the selection criteria used for identifying the underperforming employees etc. Sometimes, the employers choose to provide certain compensation payments to the terminated employees. In the case of a collective redundancy, the employers must inform the trade unions whether they would be providing such compensation payments. If yes, they also need to inform about the amount to be provided so that the dismissed workers can be informed accordingly. In all such cases, the employers are required to give a notification at least 30 days prior to the actual process of dismissals.The Manager of the Colbert pub had to ensure that he had complied with all the above specifications while terminating Bill Gates from his job as a bartender.He would have to inform Bill of the exact reason/reasons leading to the discontinuation of his services. He should have informed Bill at least 30 days before his actual dismissal.Finally,the Manager would also have to inform Bill of any compensatory payments made to him. In case, he failed to adhere to any of these rules, Bill would be able to build up a successful case of unfair dismissal against the Manager at an employment tribunal. The European Union had strong laws for protecting the interest of the employees. Under these circumstances, Bill would get adequate support from the European legislation to protest against the unfair termination of his job.5 Sources: 1. Youth Partnership Organization of European Commission (2009), European citizenship--in the process of construction, Paris: Council of Europe 2. Hansen, P. et al (2010), The Politics of European Citizenship, USA, Berghahn Books 3. Bellamy, R. et al (2005), Citizenship and Governance of the European Union,New York, Continuum International Publishing Group, 4. Guild, E. (2004), The Legal Elements of European Identity, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International 5. Acquiring EU Citizenship through Ancestry of Naturalization, (2008), Living Working, Musing and Misadventures in Greece, available at http://livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how-to-acquire-eu-citizenship-through-ancestry-or-naturalization/ (accessed on January 13, 2012) 6. EU Immigration (2008), European Union Immigration, available at http://www.euimmigration.org/(accessed on January 13, 2012) 7. Vasileva, K. &Sartori, F. (2008), Acquisition of Citizenship in the European Union, Eurostat, available at http://www.eds-destatis.de/de/downloads/sif/sf_08_108.pdf(accessed on January 13, 2012) 8. Get EU Citizenships, Passports, Visas, Permits, Driver’s Licenses; Jobs and Salaries, (2007), Living Working, Musing and Misadventures in Greece, available at http://livingingreece.gr/2007/11/08/eu-citizenship-passports-visas-permits-jobs-and-salaries-2/(accessed on January 13, 2012) 9. Your Rights – European (EU), (2011). European Youth Portal, available at http://europa.eu/youth/your_rights/index_eu_en.html(accessed on January 13, 2012) 10. EU Citizenship (2011), European Commission Justice, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/(accessed on January 13, 2012) 11. Gilhooley, D.(2009). An Introduction to Employment Tribunals, Times Higher Education, available at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=405349§ioncode=26(accessed on January 13, 2012) 12. Key Employment Law Issues, (2012), Federation of European Employers, available at http://www.fedee.com/employment-law/key-employment-law-issues/(accessed on January 13, 2012) 13. Employment Law Online (2007), available at http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=data/03400205.htm(accessed on January 13, 2012) 14. Rights at Work (n.d), European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=82&langId=en(accessed on January 13, 2012) 15. Employment Law Cases, (n.d), Legal Island, available at http://www.legal-island.com/employment-law/judgements/(accessed on January 13, 2012) 16. Chandler, P. et al (2003), Waud’s Employment Law, London, Kogan Page Publishers 17. Korn, A. et al (2007), Employment Tribunal Remedies,USA, Oxford University Press 18. Dickens, L. (2006), The Changing Institutional Face of British Employment Relations, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International 19. Gennard, J. et al (2005), Employee Relations, London, CIPD Publishing 20. Lewis, D et al (2004), Essentials of Employment Law, Great Britain, CIPD Publishing Read More