Páll Hreinsson var úti á túni í Icesavedóminum. Evrópudómsstóllinn dæmir þvert á Pál í dómi er snýr að ábyrgðasjóði launa.

Það er alveg ljóst að Páll dæmdi ekkert eftir Evrópulögum.  Enda þykir dómur Páls svo furðulegur að það er bæði vandræðalegt og neyðarlegt fyrir Ísland.  

Það er alveg sláandi að lesa dóm  C-398/11 Hogan og fl. gegn Írlandi.  Dómurinn í raun stafar fram hvernig átti að dæma í Icesavemálinu - þ.e.a.s ef dæmt hefði verið eftir lögum:

 ,,1. Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer.

2.  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that State pension benefits may not be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article.

3.  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employer's insolvency and that, on account of his insolvency, the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the pension benefits owned to the beneficiaries of that scheme to be satisfied in full. It is not necessary for those beneficiaries to prove that there are other factors giving rise to the loss of their entitlement to old-age benefits.

4.  Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted by Ireland following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 January 2007 in Case C-278/05 Robins and Others do not fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive and that the economic situation of the Member State concerned does not constitute an exceptional situation capable of justifying a lower level of protection of the interests of employees as regards their entitlement to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme.

5.  Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to Robins and Others have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49% of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member State's obligations."

 http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/ecj-ruling-waterford-crystal_en.htm

Athugasemdir

[Ólafur Björn Ólafsson, 18.5.2013 kl. 10:00]

Þarna er talað aðallega um eftirlaun sem ekki er ábyrgðarsjóður launa...

Sé ekki að þetta komi ICESAVE við á nokkurn hátt enda er mikill munur á ICESAVE annarsvegar og eftirlaunasjóðum hinsvegar...

Farðu svo að hætta þessu rugli, þú nærð ekki að réttlæta þig með þessum hætti.

Kveðja

[Ómar Bjarki Kristjánsson, 18.5.2013 kl. 11:31]

Nú. Að hverju snýr efnið þá ef ekki ábyrgðarsjóði launa.

Þetta er lgjörlega sambærilegt við dírektíf um innstæður - nema að réttindin eru ekki eins kristal skýr í þessu tilfelli og í innstæðu dírektífinu.

[Ómar Bjarki Kristjánsson, 18.5.2013 kl. 11:33]

Edir: ,,Algjörlega sambærilegt".

Afar merkilegur dómur - en kemur mér samt ekkert á óvart. Á þennan hátt hefur alltaf verið dæmt varðandi réttindi amennings hjá ECJ.

Páll Hreinsson var bara útá túni og dómur hans bókstaflega hlægilegur.

[Ólafur Björn Ólafsson, 19.5.2013 kl. 09:17]

Þú ert hlægilegur...

Þýddu þessa setningu: it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer...

Þú ert útá túni varðandi þetta ICESAVE mál...

Hehehe...