1.

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) together with Article 147 TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that the condition that ‘bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’ has been met, where:

2.

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC be interpreted, together with Article 147 TFEU, as meaning that the condition that ‘bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings are under the supervision of a competence public authority’ has been met, where:

3.

In the light of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 2001/23/EC, read in conjunction with Article 147 TFEU, is there indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 21 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] (interpreted and applied in the light of Articles 52 and 53 of the [Charter]) between employees, directly comparable to each other, who are eligible for the protections of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC and Articles 1 and 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC, (2) keeping the same job and working conditions, in the event of a procedure aimed at preservation, and employees who, by contrast, in the event of a procedure aimed at liquidation, are not eligible for the protections of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC (and Articles 1 and 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC), and therefore can no longer keep their jobs, when, in the context of a liquidation procedure, transactions are carried out to transfer the undertaking or part of the undertaking, which can be characterised as the preservation of that undertaking or part of the transferred undertaking?

4.

If so – that is to say, in the event of a finding of indirect discrimination not supported by any objective reason (with no legitimate purpose and/or not pursued through the adoption of appropriate and necessary measures), within the meaning of Article 147 TFEU, Article 21 [of the Charter] and Directives 23/2001/EC and 94/2008/EC – can the principle of equivalence of anti-discrimination protections be applied, according to which disadvantaged workers can acquire the same protections as comparable workers hired and treated more favourably, as determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand [Chamber], by the judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C-414/16 (paragraphs 75 to 80)?

5.

Does the regulatory intervention by the Italian Government with the introduction of Article 1(1-a) of Decree-Law No 4/2024, converted with amendments into Law No 28/2024, amending Article 27 of Legislative Decree 270/1999, which directly affects cases pending before the national courts, in a factual and legal situation in which the Italian Government is directly involved as the supervisory authority of the transferor undertaking, constitute an infringement of Articles 47 and 54 [of the Charter] (which correspond, pursuant to Article 52(3) [of the Charter], to Articles 6 and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and Articles 52 and 53; does, therefore, that internal rule prevent the full application of the right to an effective remedy due to an abuse of rights, and/or preclude the level of protection and/or scope of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the [Charter] and the directives mentioned?

6.

If the regulatory intervention by the Italian Government with the introduction of Article 1(1-a) of Decree-Law No 4/2024, converted with amendments into Law No 28/2024, amending Article 27 of Legislative Decree No 270/1999, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court (judgment No 99/2025), constitutes an infringement of the prohibition of regression of the protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer, governed by Articles 1 and 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC, and as a result, precludes the pursuit of the purposes intended by that directive?