CELEX: 62020CN0129
Language: en
Date: 2020-03-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-129/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 March 2020 — XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

8.6.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/10
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 March 2020 — XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
      (Case C-129/20)
      (2020/C 191/14)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: XI
      
         Respondent: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
      
         Question referred
      
      Must clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3(b) of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995 between the general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, which was implemented by Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 29bis of the amended Law of 16 April 1979 laying down the general regulations applicable to State officials in the version resulting from the Law of 22 December 2006 (Mémorial, A, 2006, No 242, p. 4838), which makes the grant of parental leave subject to the twofold condition that the worker is lawfully employed in a workplace and affiliated in that regard to the social security scheme, first, without interruption for a continuous period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the start of the parental leave and, secondly, at the time of the birth or of the reception of the child or children to be adopted, compliance with that second condition being required even if the birth or reception occurred more than 12 months before the start of the parental leave?
      
         (1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.