# C_2008092EN.01002101.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail d'Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg lodged on 18 February 2008 — Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux S.A.

(Case C-63/08)

(2008/C 92/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail d'Esch-sur-Alzette

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virginie Pontin

Applicant:

Defendant: T-Comalux S.A.

Defendant:

Question referred

| 1. | Are Articles 10 and 12 of 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 and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (1)) to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from making a legal action brought by a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy subject to time-limits fixed in advance, such as the eight-day period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article [L.] 337(1) of the [Luxembourg] Code du Travail or the fifteen-day period laid down in the fourth subparagraph of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 10 and 12 of 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 and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (1)) to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from making a legal action brought by a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy subject to time-limits fixed in advance, such as the eight-day period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article [L.] 337(1) of the [Luxembourg] Code du Travail or the fifteen-day period laid down in the fourth subparagraph of that provision?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are the eight- and fifteen-day periods to be regarded as being too short to allow a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy to take legal proceedings to safeguard her rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are the eight- and fifteen-day periods to be regarded as being too short to allow a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy to take legal proceedings to safeguard her rights?

| 3. | Is Article 2 of Council 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), to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from denying a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the right to bring an action for damages for wrongful dismissal, which is reserved, under Articles L. 124-11(1) and (2) of the Code du Travail, to other employees who have been dismissed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2 of Council 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), to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from denying a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the right to bring an action for damages for wrongful dismissal, which is reserved, under Articles L. 124-11(1) and (2) of the Code du Travail, to other employees who have been dismissed?

2

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

2

---