This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0116
Case C-116/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts v Proost NV
Case C-116/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts v Proost NV
Case C-116/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts v Proost NV
OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.5.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 128/24 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts v Proost NV
(Case C-116/08)
(2008/C 128/43)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van Cassatie van België
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: C. Meerts
Respondent: Proost NV
Question referred
Are clauses 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995 by the general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to be interpreted as meaning that, where an employer unilaterally terminates an employment contract without urgent cause or without compliance with the statutory period of notice at a time when the worker is availing himself of arrangements for reduced working hours, the payment in lieu of notice that is due to the worker must be determined by reference to the base salary calculated as if the worker had not reduced his working hours as a form of parental leave in accordance with clause [2].3(a) of the framework agreement?