# C_2015354EN.01001902.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L.

(Case C-395/15)

(2015/C 354/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Daouidi

Applicant:

Defendants: Bootes Plus S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Public Prosecutor

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (1) | Must the general prohibition of discrimination affirmed in Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) be interpreted as including, within the ambit of its prohibition and protection, the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because of his finding himself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he was receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must the general prohibition of discrimination affirmed in Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) be interpreted as including, within the ambit of its prohibition and protection, the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because of his finding himself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he was receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security?

1

| (2) | Must Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the protection that must be afforded a worker who has been the subject of a manifestly arbitrary and groundless dismissal must be the protection provided for in national legislation for every dismissal which infringes a fundamental right? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Must Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the protection that must be afforded a worker who has been the subject of a manifestly arbitrary and groundless dismissal must be the protection provided for in national legislation for every dismissal which infringes a fundamental right?

| (3) | Would a decision of an employer to dismiss a worker previously well regarded professionally merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, fall within the ambit and/or protection of Articles 3, 15, 31, 34(1) and 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (or any one or more of them)? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Would a decision of an employer to dismiss a worker previously well regarded professionally merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, fall within the ambit and/or protection of Articles 3, 15, 31, 34(1) and 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (or any one or more of them)?

| (4) | If the three foregoing questions (or any of them) are answered in the affirmative and the decision to dismiss the worker, previously professionally well regarded, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, is to be interpreted as falling within the ambit and/or protection of one or more articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may those articles be applied by the national court in order to settle a dispute between private individuals, either on the view that — depending on whether a ‘right’ or ‘principle’ is at issue — that they enjoy horizontal effect or by virtue of application of the ‘principle that national law is to be interpreted in conformity with an EU directive’?
  If the four foregoing questions should be answered in the negative, a fourth question is referred: |
| --- | --- |

(4)

If the three foregoing questions (or any of them) are answered in the affirmative and the decision to dismiss the worker, previously professionally well regarded, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, is to be interpreted as falling within the ambit and/or protection of one or more articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may those articles be applied by the national court in order to settle a dispute between private individuals, either on the view that — depending on whether a ‘right’ or ‘principle’ is at issue — that they enjoy horizontal effect or by virtue of application of the ‘principle that national law is to be interpreted in conformity with an EU directive’?

If the four foregoing questions should be answered in the negative, a fourth question is referred:

| (5) | Would the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — by reason of an accident at work, be caught by the term ‘direct discrimination ... on grounds of disability’ as one of the grounds of discrimination envisaged in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Would the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — by reason of an accident at work, be caught by the term ‘direct discrimination ... on grounds of disability’ as one of the grounds of discrimination envisaged in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78 (2)?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

2

---