| Abstract [eng] |
The Master`s workd analyses the demand for the emergence of Directive 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (hereinafter – Directive 2019/1152). The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union proves that the emergence of Directive 2019/1152 was the result of vague and undefined provisions which could have been interpreted extensively by the national courts and prevented the employee`s procedural redress mechannism from properly defending his rights. In additions to the vagueness and lack of clarity of the provisions of Directive 2019/1152, the emergence of this directive was caused by also due to social and economic factors. It has changed the labour market to include new forms of employement, new labour contracts need and, with them, unpredictable and constantly changing work schedules. As a result, the Council Directive of 14 October 1991 on the obligation of the employer to inform emplyees of the contractual or employement conditions in force (hereinafter – Directive 91/533/EEB) did cover a large number of workers in the European Union and no longer met the prevailing demand for the labour market. The latter Directive 91/533/EEB was replaced by Directive 2019/1152. In this work is analyses of the provisions of Directive 2019/1152. The comparative analysis found that part of the provisions of Directive 91/533/EEB were simply transposed into Directive 2019/1152 and slightly modified or supplemented without new regulation. Among other things, the work explored the compliance of the provisions of Directive 2019/1152 with the labour law of Lithuania and the other state members of the European Union. This has shown that part of the provisions of Directive 2019/1152 have already been transposed in various national laws and their provisions, and that the transposition and enforcement of part of the provisions may cause considerable difficulties. |
