CELEX: C2006/326/90
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-460/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/44
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   (Case C-460/06)
   (2006/C 326/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Nadine Paquay
   
      Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Must 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 (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement for the employee before the end of the period of protection?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unrelated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary to Article 2(1) (or 5(1)) of 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 (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 348, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ L 39, p. 40.