Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2006/326/90

    Case C-460/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

    OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 44–45 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/44

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

    (Case C-460/06)

    (2006/C 326/90)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Nadine Paquay

    Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 10 of 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 (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement for the employee before the end of the period of protection?

    2.

    Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unrelated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary to Article 2(1) (or 5(1)) of 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 (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?

    (1)  OJ L 348, p. 1.

    (2)  OJ L 39, p. 40.

    Top