This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/121/08
Case C-116/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
Case C-116/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
Case C-116/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
OJ C 121, 20.5.2006, p. 5–5
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.5.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 121/5 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
(Case C-116/06)
(2006/C 121/08)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Tampereen käräjäoikeus (Finland)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Sari Kiiski
Defendant: Tampereen kaupunki
Questions referred
|
1. |
Is it direct or indirect discrimination contrary to Article 2 of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC (2), for an employer to refuse to make changes to the date of child-care leave which has been granted to an employee or to interrupt it as a result of a new pregnancy of which the employee has become aware before the start of the child-care leave, in accordance with the settled interpretation of national provisions according to which a new pregnancy is not generally an unforeseen and justified ground on the basis of which the date and duration of child-care leave may be altered? |
|
2. |
May an employer sufficiently justify his conduct, described in point 1, which possibly constitutes indirect discrimination, from the point of view of that directive by the fact that ordinary problems but not ones giving rise to serious disturbances would be connected with changing teachers' working arrangements and continuity of teaching, or that the employer would under the national provisions have to compensate the person replacing the teacher on child-care leave for the loss of pay incurred if the teacher on child-care leave were to return to work in the middle of the child-care leave? |
|
3. |
Can Directive 92/85/EEC (3) on measures for the protection of pregnant workers and certain other workers be applicable, and, if that directive can be applicable, is the employer's conduct described in point 1 contrary to Articles 8 and 11 of that directive, if with child-care leave continuing the employee has lost her opportunity of enjoying the employment-based pay benefits of maternity leave? |
(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
(2) Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).
(3) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).