The purpose of Directive 2008/104/EC is to ensure the protection of temporary workers and to improve the quality of temporary work by guaranteeing temporary workers compliance with the principle of equal treatment by entrepreneurs. The factual basis of the dispute in case C-311/21 CM against TimePartner Personalmanagement GmbH was an action brought to the labour court by a temporary worker. The essence of the dispute was to determine: 1) how to define the concept of general protection of temporary workers contained in Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104/EC and; 2) what is the function of the above term?

In December 2021, the European Commission proposed a directive aimed at improving the working conditions of employees of electronic platforms. It is the first legislative proposal aimed at regulating the rapidly developing electronic labour market. In the European Union, 43 million people are forecast to be employed via online platforms in 2025. Innovation in the workplace, as long as it does not harm workers' rights, has the support of the European Commission. The author presents the legal instruments and structures — the presumption of employee employment and transparent management of work organization — proposed by the EU bodies, the European Parliament and the Council. In order for the economy to achieve  an innovative and, at the same time, harmless to the employed goal, which is nowadays electronic employment technologies, it is necessary to uniformly regulate the workplace on the common European market. It is therefore necessary to regulate both the legal status of employees and to define the competences of national public, administrative and judicial institutions, which are obliged to provide legal protection for employees.

The author presents the rules for summing up the periods of insurance, residence or employment, and for the proportional determination of completed insurance periods in the EU Member States. They are absolutely applicable in all situations related to the entitlement to social security benefits by persons moving within the European Union. The application of these principles is illustrated on the example of acquiring the right to an old-age pension. In the latest case C-866/19 SC v. ZUS I Branch in Warsaw, the CJEU ruled that the application of the above principle cannot be limited to the case analyzed in another "Polish" judgment in an earlier, similar case C-440/09. The potential conflict of interpretation applied by the social security courts in the Republic of Poland was resolved by the judgment of the CJEU of 21.10. 2021 in case C-866/19.

In case C-610/18, the CJEU formulated an autonomous definition of an employee in social security law. It ruled that the employer employing employees who are drivers of international transport, obliged to pay contributions for insurance benefits to the national social security institution, is, in the light of the provisions of Regulations 1408/2004 and 833/2004, an entity or natural person actually, and not fictitiously, employing employees actually remaining at its disposal for an indefinite period of time and its subordinates. Such an employer actually bears the relevant salary costs of the employees. He is fully entitled to control and make decisions on the termination of employment relationships with employees. On the other hand, the fact of concluding an employment contract by an entity or a person who does not meet the above criteria does not have legal consequences on the part of the employer, as it does not result in establishing an employment relationship.

In accordance with equally settled case-law, Article  267 TFEU gives national courts the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court if they consider that a case pending before them raises questions involving the interpretation of provisions of EU law, or consideration of their validity, which are necessary for the resolution of the case before them. Provisions of national law which expose national judges to disciplinary proceedings as a result of the fact that they submitted a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling cannot therefore be permitted. Therefore the requests for a preliminary ruling made by Regional Court, Łódź, Poland and by the Regional Court, Warsaw, Poland, by decisions of March 26th, 2020, were dismissed. The author explains the reasons why the EU Tribunal issued such a judgment.