CELEX: 62018CN0344
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-344/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV

201808030392050162018/C 294/223442018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180525161722Case C-344/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1620120180525EN0022162172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV
   (Case C-344/18)2018/C 294/22Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court
   
   Arbeidshof te Gent
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: ISS Facility Services NV
   
      Respondents: Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV
   
      Question referred
   
   Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (
         1
      ) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where there is a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, which parts are transferred to various transferees, the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract, as it existed at the time of the transfer, of a worker who was employed in each of the transferred parts, will be transferred to each of the transferees, albeit in proportion to the extent of the employment of the aforementioned worker in the part of the undertaking acquired by each transferee,
   or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned rights and obligations are transferred in their entirety to the transferee of the part of the undertaking in which the aforementioned worker was principally employed,
   or as meaning that, if the provisions of the Directive cannot be interpreted in any of the aforementioned ways, there is no transfer to any transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract of the aforementioned worker, which is also the case if it is not possible to determine separately the extent of the worker’s employment in each of the transferred parts of the undertaking?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.