@Casa de Trastamara
I really do understand where you coming from - but you need to be careful about encouraging Selmar to do something that could be damaging to himself.
Firstly Selmar is not an "immigrant" in France for work purposes - he is an EU citizen - we have free movement here in the EU - he has the exact same rights as a French citizen - he can vote at local elections etc - he cannot vote for presidential elections - that is the only impact of him being Dutch. He would have no use of an immigration lawyer.
As I've explained in previous posts Selmar was not an employee, either of workaway or of Stephanie. Unless and until he can have his time their qualified as employment ( which would be the first step in doing anything) he has no recourse to Droit du travail.
For French droit du travail to apply he'd have to first have his time at Lalande recognized as employment.
Even if he managed this ( and it would be lengthly and costly and most probably morally exhausting) he would then have to prove moral harassment. This is very much a "she says he says" procedure. Selmar would need to provide written evidence of the harassment going on. It would be countered by all the evidence (videos etc) of Selmar "enjoying" life at Lalande and being involved in the community.
Selmar, if he won would be awarded minimal damages ( capped at equivalent 3 months salary )
If Selmar tried to go through civil court and not prud'hommes first then whatever happened in civil court would be "suspensif". This would make the procedure even more complicated
Once again, I understand where you're coming from but as I've said before - moral and law are two different things.
I understand your opinion - I understand your wish for Selmar to be "vindicated" through the courts. In my opinion there is simply not enough enough base of evidence for Selmar to go to court and win.
If Selmar was to start this process it would be long, costly and morally exhausting. All the proceedings would also happen in French and Selmar would bring scrutiny to his statut as en auto-entrepreneur.
Going to be the devils advocate here :
If for example the courts decided that legally Selmar was an "autoentrpreneure" as he legally declared and announced on the vlogs they could then come to the conclusion that part of his remuneration was that he benefited from a minimal contribution to food and lodgings (`100€ pcm) and declare that this was a taxable benefit he should have paid tax on and fine him.
Really
@Casa de Trastamara your advice could be more than damaging you need to be careful about just screenshooting random isolated bits French law. You could get Selmar hopes up for nothing, or worse encourage him to do something that may be prejudicial to himself
If
@Selmar wants to go up against Stephanie I would recommend he go to a PAD "point d'accès au droit" or a point justice ( he can find lists here -
https://www.justice.fr/acces-droit or
http://www.annuaires.justice.gouv.fr/annuaires-12162/les-point-justice-34055.html) where he can consult a qualified legal professional for free and ask where he stands.
Just because Stephanie deserves to be found guilty does not mean that it would be best for Selmar to
Source :
- Not google
- Over 30 years of life in France including 5 spent getting a masters in French law
- Witnessing a very good friend (French and French speaking) who was legally employed by a reputable Parisian institution be totally destroyed by the process when she took her employer to court when she lost her legal well paid job after 12 years because she stopped sleeping with her hierarchical superior and he starting bullying her. Spending hours and hours reading up on prudhomme and droit du travail jurisprudence at that time.
bravo.
