EN
23.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 207/19
Question referred In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, (1) can foreign nationals arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention signed on 19 June 1990 be refused entry, when entry checks are carried out at that border, on the basis of Article 14 of that regulation, without Directive 2008/115/EC (2) being applicable?
(1) (2)
Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Président du tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 March 2022 — OP v Commune d’Ans (Case C-148/22) (2022/C 207/27) Language of the case: French Referring court Président du tribunal du travail de Liège Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: OP Defendant: Commune d’Ans Questions referred 1.
Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public? 2.
Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public, even if that neutral prohibition appears mostly to affect women, and may thus constitute disguised discrimination on grounds of gender?
(1)
OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 March 2022 — Kopiosto r.y. v Telia Finland Oyj (Case C-201/22) (2022/C 207/28) Language of the case: Finnish Referring court Korkein oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Kopiosto r.y.
Respondent: Telia Finland Oyj