Case C-595/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria
Date: 2012-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, labour relations, maternity leave, principle of proportionality, vocational training








C_2013086EN.01000702.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria
(Case C-595/12)
2013/C 86/11
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Loredana Napoli

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) (return from maternity leave) applicable to attendance of a professional training course in the context of an employment relationship and must it be interpreted as meaning that, at the end of the leave period, the female worker concerned has the right to be re-admitted to the same course still under way, or can it be interpreted as meaning that the female worker concerned may be enrolled on a subsequent course, even though the timing, at least, of that subsequent course is uncertain?










2.


Must Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, which provides that any less favourable treatment related to maternity leave constitutes discrimination, be interpreted as affording female workers protection, which is absolute and cannot be affected by divergent interests, against any substantial inequality (Case C-136/95 Thibault [1998] ECR I-2011), so as to preclude national legislation which, by requiring dismissal from a professional training course and at the same time guaranteeing the option of enrolling on the following course, pursues the objective of providing adequate training but deprives the female worker of the opportunity to take up, at an earlier date, a new post together with male colleagues from the competition and course, and thus to receive the corresponding pay?










3.


Must Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/54/EC, under which a difference of treatment based on characteristics constituting a genuine occupational requirement does not amount to discrimination, be interpreted as permitting the Member State to delay access to employment to the detriment of a female worker who has been unable to undergo full professional training as a result of maternity leave?










4.


In the scenario set out in [Question 3], and accepting, in abstract terms, that Article 14(2) is applicable to the case set out therein, must that provision none the less be interpreted, in accordance with the general principle of proportionality, as precluding national legislation which requires that a female worker absent on maternity leave be dismissed from the course rather than ensuring that parallel remedial courses be set up in order to allow the training shortfall to be remedied, thereby combining the rights of the working mother and the public interest, but with the organisational and financial costs attached to that option?










5.


If it is interpreted as precluding the national legislation referred to above, does Directive 2006/54/EC set out, in that regard, self-executing rules which are directly applicable by the national court?






(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC 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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).