Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CJ0252

    Commission v Netherlands

    Case C‑252/13

    European Commission

    v

    Kingdom of the Netherlands

    ‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/73/EC and 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Employment and occupation — Access to employment — Return from maternity leave — Formal requirements for the application initiating proceedings — Coherent summary of the pleas — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought’

    Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 October 2014

    Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility

    (Art 258 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 120(c))

    See the text of the decision.

    (see paras 28, 29, 33, 34, 42, 43)

    Top

    Case C‑252/13

    European Commission

    v

    Kingdom of the Netherlands

    ‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/73/EC and 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Employment and occupation — Access to employment — Return from maternity leave — Formal requirements for the application initiating proceedings — Coherent summary of the pleas — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought’

    Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 October 2014

    Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility

    (Art 258 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 120(c))

    See the text of the decision.

    (see paras 28, 29, 33, 34, 42, 43)

    Top