CELEX: C2007/297/24
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-460/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Brussels, Belgium) — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL (Social policy — Protection of pregnant women — Directive 92/85/EEC — Article 10 — Prohibition on dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave — Period of protection — Decision to dismiss a female worker during that period of protection — Notification and implementation of the decision to dismiss after the expiry of that period — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Directive 76/207/EEC — Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 6 — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex — Sanctions)

8.12.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/16
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Brussels, Belgium) — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   (Case C-460/06) (1)
   
   (Social policy - Protection of pregnant women - Directive 92/85/EEC - Article 10 - Prohibition on dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave - Period of protection - Decision to dismiss a female worker during that period of protection - Notification and implementation of the decision to dismiss after the expiry of that period - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 76/207/EEC - Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 6 - Direct discrimination on grounds of sex - Sanctions)
   (2007/C 297/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Nadine Paquay
   
      Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 6 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), and Article 10 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 breast feeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Prohibition of dismissal — Dismissal of an employee decided on, because of her pregnancy or the birth of a child, during the period of protection provided for by the directive, but notified to that employee and implemented after the expiry of that period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 10 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 prohibiting not only the notification of a decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or of the birth of a child during the period of protection set down in paragraph 1 of that article but also the taking of preparatory steps for such a decision before the end of that period.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               A decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or child birth is contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC, of 9 February 1976, on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions irrespective of the moment when that decision to dismiss is notified and even if it is notified after the end of the period of protection set down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85. Since such a decision to dismiss is contrary to both Article 10 of Directive 92/85 and Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207, the measure chosen by a Member State under Article 6 of that latter directive to sanction the infringement of those provisions must be at least equivalent to the sanction set down in national law implementing Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.