Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007]

C-278/05 Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] represents a significant intersection of UK insolvency law, labour law, and EU law, focusing on the protection of employees' pension rights upon the insolvency of their employer. The case revolved around the adequacy of the UK's implementation of Directive 80/987/EEC (the Insolvency Directive), specifically Article 8, which concerns the protection of employees' entitlements in the event of their employer's insolvency.

Robins, who was employed by a now insolvent company, found himself facing significant reductions in his expected final salary pension benefits due to the insolvency of the pension scheme. He sought compensation, arguing that the UK had failed to provide the level of social protection for employees' pension entitlements as required by the Insolvency Directive. The question was whether the UK's measures, particularly the Financial Assistance Scheme established under the Pensions Act 2004 section 286, were sufficient to meet the Directive's requirements.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), led by Judge Timmermans, clarified several key points in its judgment. First, the ECJ determined that EU member states are not required to ensure pension funds are fully guaranteed in the event of insolvency. Instead, member states could mandate pension schemes to purchase insurance to protect pension benefits, offering an alternative method of protection.

However, the ECJ found that the protection provided by the UK, particularly through its Financial Assistance Scheme, was insufficient. With potential benefits as low as 20% of the entitlement, the scheme did not constitute 'protection' within the meaning of Article 8 of the Insolvency Directive. This indicated a failure in the proper implementation of the Directive by the UK.

The judgment also addressed the circumstances under which a Member State might incur liability for failing to implement the Directive correctly. Following the principle established in Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany, the ECJ indicated that liability would depend on a manifest and grave disregard for the limits of the Member State's discretion. The national court would need to consider the clarity and precision of Article 8 and the degree of discretion afforded to national authorities in determining the level of protection required.

This case highlights the complex interplay between national law and EU directives, particularly in the context of employee rights and social protection in insolvency situations. It underscores the necessity for Member States to ensure that their national measures effectively safeguard employees' entitlements to the extent required by EU law. Additionally, Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions serves as a reminder of the potential liability that Member States face for inadequately implementing EU directives, emphasising the need for careful consideration of the obligations imposed by EU law.
Back to blog
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.