This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0007
Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 65/9 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-7/12)
2012/C 65/17
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Augstākās tiesas Senāta
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece
Defendants: Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC (1) 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 conditions, and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave included in annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (2) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC be interpreted as meaning that an employer is precluded from undertaking any action (in particular, the assessment of an employee while absent) which might result in a female employee on parental leave losing her post after returning to work? |
|
2. |
Does the answer to the previous question differ if the reason for such action is the fact that, due to the economic recession in a Member State, in all the administrations of the State the number of civil servants has been optimised and posts abolished? |
|
3. |
Must the assessment of an applicant’s work and merits which takes into account his latest annual performance appraisal as a civil servant and his results before parental leave be regarded as indirect discrimination when compared to the fact that the work and merits of other civil servants who have continued in active employment (taking the opportunity, moreover, to achieve further merit) are assessed according to fresh criteria? |