Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium)) — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)
(Case C-65/14) 1
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 11(2) and (4) — Established public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee — Refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she has not completed, as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required in order to be eligible to receive certain social benefits)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Tribunal du travail de Nivelles
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle
Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)
Intervening party: Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes (IEFH)
Operative part of the judgment
The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Council 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) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from granting a worker a maternity allowance on the ground that, as an established public servant having obtained non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee, she has not completed, in the context of her work as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required under national law in order to be eligible to receive that maternity allowance, even if she has worked for over 12 months immediately prior to the presumed date of confinement.
____________
____________
1 OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.