Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2019:523
Date: 2019-06-20
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2018 — Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA (Case C-404/18) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA Question referred Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive 2006/54/EC 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings? ____________ 1 OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.