{"id":6757,"date":"2024-06-14T10:25:22","date_gmt":"2024-06-14T09:25:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/?post_type=agora_article&p=6757"},"modified":"2024-07-17T19:06:23","modified_gmt":"2024-07-17T18:06:23","slug":"the-heavy-burden-of-legal-costs","status":"publish","type":"agora_article","link":"https:\/\/unionsyndicale.eu\/en\/agora_article\/the-heavy-burden-of-legal-costs\/","title":{"rendered":"The Heavy Burden of Legal Costs"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/i><\/div>
Previous<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

The Heavy Burden of Legal Costs<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/i><\/div>
Previous<\/span><\/div><\/div>
Next<\/span><\/div>
<\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

The Heavy Burden of Legal Costs<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Next<\/span><\/div>
<\/i><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
Agora #92<\/span><\/div>
46 - 48<\/span><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

The States are obligated to ensure that legal aid systems are in place to guarantee that all individuals regardless of their financial status, have access to justice<\/span><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>\n
<\/div>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>

The Heavy Burden of Legal Costs: An Obstacle to Justice for Agencies\u2019 staff<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

If you ask the modern version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which would be to say AI, to comment on the \u201cright to justice cannot be a privilege reserved for those who can afford to pay exorbitant legal costs\u201d, it would propose a vast literature to you [1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With all due reservations about the reliability of Artificial Intelligence, we take it as a basis for developing our concept<\/p>\n

In cases brought by their own employees before the Court of Justice of the EU, the main EU institutions entrust the defence of their interests to lawyers from their own legal service, which implies that even if the Court rules against the worker, the costs they will have to bear will remain limited and reasonable.<\/p>\n

This is not the case for Agencies, especially Regulatory agencies which, not having their own legal service, entrust their defence to external lawyers, often from law firms known for high levels of fees and expenses.<\/p>\n

Therefore, in the event that the losing party is the Staff member, the amounts that the Court may order them to pay can be extremely high, unbearable both for the worker (let’s not forget that, in Agencies, the vast majority of staff are precarious, therefore with low salary levels) and for the Trade Union that should support them in the appeal.<\/p>\n

In a fair legal system, the right to justice cannot be a privilege reserved for those who can afford to pay exorbitant legal costs: justice must be accessible to all. When legal costs become excessive, this principle becomes a distorted reality. In cases of labor disputes, where workers often find themselves facing “employers” with incomparably greater financial resources, the issue of legal costs becomes even more critical.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>\"\"<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Charging the losing party with the costs of the trial is meant to discourage frivolous legal actions, but in practice, it can have devastating consequences for workers. When a worker loses a case and is charged with the costs of the trial, in particular the costs of the opposite party for its defense in court, they may find themselves in an even more precarious financial situation than before.<\/p>\n

This means that even if staff members are in the right, the mere risk of being forced to pay legal costs can deter them from pursuing the case. This leads to an obvious power imbalance in the legal system, where employers with larger financial resources can afford to intimidate workers with threats of legal costs, even when their position is unfounded.<\/p>\n

Moreover, this practice is inherently unfair because it puts workers in a position of greater vulnerability. It could mean that a worker who has suffered an injustice in the workplace, such as unjustified dismissal or discrimination, may not be able to assert their rights simply because they cannot afford the financial risk associated with a legal action.<\/p>\n

The direct consequence of this situation is that employers (Agency Directors) may feel free to violate workers’ rights, knowing that victims will think twice about seeking justice because of the excessive risks. This creates a vicious cycle in which workers feel powerless in the face of employer abuse, undermining confidence in the legal system and the principles of fairness and justice.<\/p>\n

Because this is not about so-called “frivolous” cases that it is right to discourage, but about violations of the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants) against which the complaint (pursuant to art 90.2 of the Staff Regulations) is destined to be rejected in almost all cases, if only because the Authority deciding on the appeal is the same person who adopted or “covered up” the act against which the worker complains.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>

To reverse this trend, it is necessary to review the rules and practices relating to staff complaints and appeals, providing that:<\/p>\n