mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Tokiomis aplinkybėmis rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamo apylinkės teismas) nusprendė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar prašomo perduoti asmens, kuris gali pasislėpti, laikymas suimto, siekiant jį perduoti, daugiau kaip 90 dienų, skaičiuojamų nuo šio asmens sulaikymo momento, prieštarauja [Chartijos] 6 straipsniui, jei:
–vykdančioji valstybė narė [Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584] 17 straipsnį perkėlė taip, kad prašomo perduoti asmens suėmimo siekiant jį perduoti taikymas visais atvejais turi būti sustabdomas, kai viršijamas 90 dienų terminas, nustatytas galutiniam sprendimui dėl Europos arešto orderio vykdymo priimti, ir
–šios valstybės narės teisminės institucijos išaiškino nacionalinės teisės aktus taip, kad sprendimo priėmimo terminas sustabdomas, kai vykdančioji teisminė institucija nusprendžia pateikti Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismui prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą ar palaukti atsakymo į kitos vykdančiosios teisminės institucijos pateiktą prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą, ar atidėti sprendimo dėl perdavimo priėmimą dėl to, kad kyla realus pavojus, jog išduodančiojoje valstybėje narėje kalinimo sąlygos yra nežmoniškos ar žeminamos?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamo apylinkės teismas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamo apylinkės teismas)"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamo apylinkės teismas)"->"prejudicinį klausimą";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"sprendimą ar palaukti atsakymo į kitos vykdančiosios teisminės institucijos pateiktą prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą, ar atidėti sprendimo dėl perdavimo priėmimą dėl to, kad kyla realus pavojus, jog išduodančiojoje valstybėje narėje kalinimo sąlygos yra nežmoniškos ar žeminamos?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

E körülmények között a rechtbank Amsterdam (amszterdami bíróság) úgy határozott, hogy az eljárást felfüggeszti, és előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé:
„Az olyan átadni kért személynek, akinek esetében a szökés veszélye fennáll, az átadás céljából történő fogva tartásának az elfogásától számított 90 napon túli fenntartása ellentétes‑e a [Charta] 6. cikkével, amennyiben:
–a végrehajtó tagállam a [2002/584 kerethatározat] 17. cikkét úgy ültette át, hogy annak értelmében az átadni kért személynek az átadás céljából történő fogva tartását minden esetben fel kell függeszteni, amint az európai elfogatóparancs végrehajtásáról szóló végleges határozat meghozatalára rendelkezésre álló 90 napos határidő lejárt, és ha
–ugyanezen tagállam igazságügyi hatóságai a nemzeti jogot úgy értelmezik, hogy a határozathozatalra nyitva álló határidő nyugszik, amennyiben a végrehajtó igazságügyi hatóság úgy dönt, hogy előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelmet terjeszt a Bíróság elé, vagy hogy megvárja a valamely más végrehajtó igazságügyi hatóság által előterjesztett előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelemre adandó választ, vagy pedig úgy, hogy a kibocsátó tagállamban történő embertelen vagy megalázó fogvatartási körülmények tényleges veszélyére figyelemmel elhalasztja az átadásról való határozathozatalt?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (amszterdami bíróság))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (amszterdami bíróság))"->"eljárást felfüggeszti"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (amszterdami bíróság))"->"előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé";
  "előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"Bíróság";
  "előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"vagy hogy megvárja a valamely más végrehajtó igazságügyi hatóság által előterjesztett előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelemre adandó választ, vagy pedig úgy, hogy a kibocsátó tagállamban történő embertelen vagy megalázó fogvatartási körülmények tényleges veszélyére figyelemmel elhalasztja az átadásról való határozathozatalt?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Maltese

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, ir-rechtbank Amsterdam (il-Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Amsterdam) iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemha u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li ġejja:
“Fil-każ fejn:
–l-Istat Membru ta’ eżekuzzjoni ttraspona l-Artikolu 17 tad-[Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584] fis-sens li d-detenzjoni intiża għall-konsenja tal-persuna rikjesta għandha dejjem tiġi sospiża malli jgħaddi l-perijodu ta’ 90 jum mogħti sabiex tingħata deċiżjoni definittiva dwar l-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew, u
–l-awtoritajiet ġudizzjarji ta’ dan l-Istat Membru interpretaw il-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali fis-sens li l-perijodu għal deċiżjoni huwa sospiż malli l-awtorità ġudizzjarja tal-eżekuzzjoni tiddeċiedi li tadixxi lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja b’talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari jew li tistenna r-risposta għal talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari ppreżentata minn awtorità ġudizzjarja tal-eżekuzzjoni oħra, jew ukoll li tipposponi d-deċiżjoni dwar il-konsenja minħabba riskju reali ta’ kundizzjonijiet ta’ detenzjoni inumani jew degradanti fl-Istat Membru emittenti,
iż-żamma tad-detenzjoni intiża għall-konsenja ta’ persuna rikjesta li hemm riskju li taħrab, għal perijodu li jaqbeż id-90 jum mill-arrest ta’ din il-persuna, tmur kontra l-Artikolu 6 tal-[Karta]?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Amsterdam)"->"tissospendi l-proċeduri"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Amsterdam)"->"d-domanda preliminari li ġejja";
  "d-domanda preliminari li ġejja"->"Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "d-domanda preliminari li ġejja"->"iż-żamma tad-detenzjoni intiża għall-konsenja ta’ persuna rikjesta li hemm riskju li taħrab, għal perijodu li jaqbeż id-90 jum mill-arrest ta’ din il-persuna, tmur kontra l-Artikolu 6 tal-[Karta]?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Dutch

In die omstandigheden heeft de rechtbank Amsterdam de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing over de volgende vraag:
„In een geval waarin:
–de uitvoerende lidstaat artikel 17 van [kaderbesluit 2002/584] zo heeft omgezet, dat de overleveringsdetentie van de opgeëiste persoon steeds moet worden geschorst, zodra de termijn van 90 dagen voor het nemen van de definitieve beslissing over de tenuitvoerlegging van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel wordt overschreden en
–de rechterlijke instanties van die lidstaat het nationale recht zo hebben uitgelegd, dat de beslistermijn wordt geschorst, zodra de uitvoerende rechterlijke autoriteit heeft besloten een prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Justitie te stellen of de beantwoording van een door een andere uitvoerende rechterlijke autoriteit gestelde prejudiciële vraag af te wachten dan wel de beslissing over de overlevering uit te stellen vanwege een reëel gevaar van onmenselijke of vernederende detentieomstandigheden in de uitvaardigende lidstaat,
is handhaving van de overleveringsdetentie van een vluchtgevaarlijke opgeëiste persoon zodra deze meer dan 90 dagen na de aanhouding van de opgeëiste persoon duurt dan in strijd met artikel 6 van het [Handvest]?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hof van Justitie"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"->"de behandeling van de zaak geschorst"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"->"prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Justitie";
  "prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Justitie"->"Hof van Justitie";
  "prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Justitie"->"is handhaving van de overleveringsdetentie van een vluchtgevaarlijke opgeëiste persoon zodra deze meer dan 90 dagen na de aanhouding van de opgeëiste persoon duurt dan in strijd met artikel 6 van het [Handvest]?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Polish

W tych okolicznościach rechtbank Amsterdam (sąd rejonowy w Amsterdamie) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:
„Czy utrzymanie aresztu ekstradycyjnego osoby poszukiwanej, w wypadku której istnieje ryzyko ucieczki, przez okres trwający dłużej niż 90 dni od zatrzymania tej osoby jest sprzeczne z art. 6 [karty], jeżeli:
–wykonujące nakaz państwo członkowskie dokonało transpozycji art. 17 [decyzji ramowej 2002/584] w ten sposób, że areszt ekstradycyjny osoby poszukiwanej musi zostać zawieszony zawsze wtedy, gdy tylko przekroczony zostanie 90-dniowy termin na podjęcie ostatecznej decyzji w sprawie wykonania europejskiego nakazu aresztowania, i
–organy sądowe tego państwa członkowskiego dokonały takiej wykładni prawa krajowego, zgodnie z którą termin na podjęcie decyzji zostaje zawieszony, gdy tylko wykonujący nakaz organ sądowy postanowi zwrócić się do Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z pytaniem prejudycjalnym lub oczekiwać na udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytania, z którymi zwrócił się inny wykonujący nakaz organ sądowy, jak również odroczyć przekazanie ze względu na realne ryzyko nieludzkich i poniżających warunków pozbawienia wolności w wydającym nakaz państwie członkowskim?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sąd rejonowy w Amsterdamie)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sąd rejonowy w Amsterdamie)"->"zawiesić postępowanie"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sąd rejonowy w Amsterdamie)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Europejskiej z pytaniem prejudycjalnym lub oczekiwać na udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytania, z którymi zwrócił się inny wykonujący nakaz organ sądowy, jak również odroczyć przekazanie ze względu na realne ryzyko nieludzkich i poniżających warunków pozbawienia wolności w wydającym nakaz państwie członkowskim?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Neste contexto, o rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primeira Instância de Amesterdão) decidiu suspender a instância e submeter ao Tribunal de Justiça a seguinte questão prejudicial:
«Numa situação em que:
–o Estado‑Membro de execução transpôs o artigo 17.o da [Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584] no sentido de que a detenção com vista à entrega da pessoa procurada deve ser sempre suspensa assim que o prazo de 90 dias para tomar a decisão definitiva sobre a execução do mandado de detenção europeu seja excedido e
–os órgãos jurisdicionais do referido Estado‑Membro interpretam o direito nacional no sentido de que o prazo de decisão é suspenso assim que a autoridade judiciária de execução decide submeter uma questão prejudicial ao Tribunal de Justiça ou aguardar a resposta a uma questão prejudicial submetida por outra autoridade judiciária de execução ou ainda adiar a decisão sobre a entrega devido a um risco real de condições de detenção desumanas ou degradantes no Estado‑Membro de emissão,
é a manutenção da detenção com vista à entrega de uma pessoa procurada em relação à qual existe perigo de fuga, por um período superior a 90 dias a contar da data da detenção da pessoa procurada, contrária ao artigo 6.o da [Carta]?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primeira Instância de Amesterdão)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justiça"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primeira Instância de Amesterdão)"->"suspender a instância"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primeira Instância de Amesterdão)"->"questão prejudicial ao Tribunal de Justiça";
  "questão prejudicial ao Tribunal de Justiça"->"Tribunal de Justiça";
  "questão prejudicial ao Tribunal de Justiça"->"aguardar a resposta a uma questão prejudicial submetida por outra autoridade judiciária de execução ou ainda adiar a decisão sobre a entrega devido a um risco real de condições de detenção desumanas ou degradantes no Estado‑Membro de emissão,
é a manutenção da detenção com vista à entrega de uma pessoa procurada em relação à qual existe perigo de fuga, por um período superior a 90 dias a contar da data da detenção da pessoa procurada, contrária ao artigo 6.o da [Carta]?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Romanian

În aceste condiții, rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunalul din Amsterdam) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:
„Menținerea detenției în vederea predării unei persoane solicitate care prezintă un risc de a fugi, pentru o durată care depășește 90 de zile de la arestarea acestei persoane, este contrară articolului 6 din [cartă] în cazul în care:
–statul membru de executare a transpus articolul 17 din [Decizia‑cadru 2002/584] în sensul că detenția în vederea predării persoanei solicitate trebuie întotdeauna să fie suspendată de îndată ce se depășește termenul de 90 de zile pentru luarea unei decizii definitive cu privire la executarea mandatului european de arestare și
–instanțele judecătorești ale acestui stat membru au interpretat legislația națională în sensul că termenul de decizie se suspendă de îndată ce autoritatea judiciară de executare decide să adreseze o întrebare preliminară Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene sau să aștepte răspunsul la o întrebare preliminară adresată de o altă autoritate judiciară de executare sau să amâne decizia cu privire la predare din cauza unui risc real de condiții de detenție inumane sau degradante în statul membru emitent?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunalul din Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Curții de Justiție"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunalul din Amsterdam)"->"să suspende judecarea cauzei"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunalul din Amsterdam)"->"o întrebare preliminară Curții de Justiție";
  "o întrebare preliminară Curții de Justiție"->"Curții de Justiție";
  "o întrebare preliminară Curții de Justiție"->"sau să aștepte răspunsul la o întrebare preliminară adresată de o altă autoritate judiciară de executare sau să amâne decizia cu privire la predare din cauza unui risc real de condiții de detenție inumane sau degradante în statul membru emitent?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

V teh okoliščinah je rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:
„Ali je v primeru, v katerem:
–je izvršitvena država članica člen 17 Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 prenesla tako, da je treba pripor zaradi izročitve zahtevane osebe vedno odpraviti, ko je prekoračen 90-dnevni rok za sprejetje končne odločitve o izvršitvi evropskega naloga za prijetje in predajo, in
–so sodišča te države članice razlagala nacionalno pravo tako, da se tek roka za odločitev prekine, ko izvršitveni pravosodni organ odloči, da bo predložil vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču ali da bo počakal na odgovor na vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je predložil drug izvršitveni pravosodni organ, ali da bo odložil odločitev o predaji zaradi dejanske nevarnosti nečloveških ali nehumanih razmer v priporu v odreditveni državi članici,
ohranitev pripora zaradi izročitve begosumne osebe, katere predaja je zahtevana, kadar ta pripor traja več kot 90 dni od prijetja zahtevane osebe, v nasprotju s členom 6 [Listine]?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu)"->"prekinilo odločanje"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu)"->"vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču";
  "vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču"->"Sodišču";
  "vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču"->"odločanje, ki ga je predložil drug izvršitveni pravosodni organ, ali da bo odložil odločitev o predaji zaradi dejanske nevarnosti nečloveških ali nehumanih razmer v priporu v odreditveni državi članici,
ohranitev pripora zaradi izročitve begosumne osebe, katere predaja je zahtevana, kadar ta pripor traja več kot 90 dni od prijetja zahtevane osebe, v nasprotju s členom 6 [Listine]?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Tässä tilanteessa rechtbank Amsterdam päätti lykätä asian käsittelyä ja esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen:
”Jos
–täytäntöönpanosta vastaava jäsenvaltio on saattanut puitepäätöksen [2002/584] 17 artiklan osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöä siten, että luovutettavaksi vaaditun henkilön säilössä pitäminen on aina keskeytettävä heti, kun eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen täytäntöönpanoa koskevan lopullisen päätöksen tekemisen 90 päivän määräaika on päättynyt, ja
–saman jäsenvaltion oikeusviranomaiset ovat tulkinneet kansallista oikeutta siten, että päätöksen määräajan kuluminen keskeytetään heti, kun täytäntöönpanosta vastaava oikeusviranomainen on päättänyt esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen tai odottaa ratkaisua toisen täytäntöönpanosta vastaavan oikeusviranomaisen esittämään ennakkoratkaisukysymykseen tai lykätä luovuttamista koskevan päätöksen tekemistä, koska pidätysmääräyksen antaneessa jäsenvaltiossa on todellinen vaara epäinhimillisistä tai halventavista säilössäpito-olosuhteista,
onko luovutettavaksi vaaditun henkilön, jota koskee pakenemisen vaara, luovutusta varten säilössä pitäminen tällöin [perusoikeuskirjan] 6 artiklan vastaista heti, kun se on kestänyt yli 90 päivää luovutettavaksi vaaditun henkilön kiinni ottamisesta?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "unionin tuomioistuimelle"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"->"lykätä asian käsittelyä"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam)"->"ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen";
  "ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"unionin tuomioistuimelle";
  "ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"jäsenvaltiossa on todellinen vaara epäinhimillisistä tai halventavista säilössäpito-olosuhteista,
onko luovutettavaksi vaaditun henkilön, jota koskee pakenemisen vaara, luovutusta varten säilössä pitäminen tällöin [perusoikeuskirjan] 6 artiklan vastaista heti, kun se on kestänyt yli 90 päivää luovutettavaksi vaaditun henkilön kiinni ottamisesta?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Mot denna bakgrund beslutade Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam) att vilandeförklara målet och ställa följande fråga till domstolen:
”Strider det mot artikel 6 i [stadgan] att en eftersökt person som riskerar att avvika hålls kvar i häkte i väntan på att överlämnas, under en tid som överskrider 90 dagar från och med att personen greps, om
–den verkställande medlemsstaten har införlivat artikel 17 i [rambeslut 2002/584] så, att frihetsberövandet i väntan på att den begärda personen överlämnas alltid ska hävas när 90-dagarsfristen för att fatta ett slutgiltigt beslut om verkställande av den europeiska arresteringsordern har överskridits, och
–de rättsliga myndigheterna i medlemsstaten har tolkat den nationella lagstiftningen så, att beslutsfristen avbryts när den verkställande rättsliga myndigheten beslutar att framställa en begäran om förhandsavgörande till EU-domstolen, att invänta svaret på en begäran om förhandsavgörande som har framställts av en annan verkställande rättslig myndighet, eller att skjuta upp beslutet om överlämnande med anledning av att det finns en verklig risk för att förhållandena under frihetsberövandet är omänskliga eller förnedrande i den utfärdande medlemsstaten?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "EU-domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam)"->"vilandeförklara målet"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam)"->"följande fråga till domstolen";
  "följande fråga till domstolen"->"EU-domstolen";
  "följande fråga till domstolen"->"begäran om förhandsavgörande som har framställts av en annan verkställande rättslig myndighet, eller att skjuta upp beslutet om överlämnande med anledning av att det finns en verklig risk för att förhållandena under frihetsberövandet är omänskliga eller förnedrande i den utfärdande medlemsstaten?";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 22 November 1999, RE commenced employment as a sales assistant with Materials Research Corporation, now Praxair MRC, under a fixed-term and full-time contract. By addendum of 21 July 2000, her employment contract became a contract of indefinite duration and full-time with effect from 1 August 2000.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Materials Research Corporation"->"Started employment 22/11/1999";
   "Started employment 22/11/1999"->"RE";
   "Started employment 22/11/1999"->"Fixed-term full-time contract"[dir=none];
   "Materials Research Corporation"->"Attendum 21/07/2000";
   "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"RE";
   "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"Indefinite duration and full-time with effect from 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
   "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

На 22 ноември 1999 г. RE е наета на работа като търговски помощник в Materials Research Corporation, понастоящем Praxair MRC, на срочен трудов договор и на пълно работно време. С допълнително споразумение от 21 юли 2000 г. договорът ѝ е преобразуван в трудов договор за неопределено време и на пълно работно време, считано от 1 август 2000 г.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"На 22 ноември 1999 г. RE е наета на работа 22/11/1999";
  "На 22 ноември 1999 г. RE е наета на работа 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "На 22 ноември 1999 г. RE е наета на работа 22/11/1999"->"срочен трудов договор и на пълно работно време"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"допълнително споразумение 21/07/2000";
  "допълнително споразумение 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "допълнително споразумение 21/07/2000"->"трудов договор за неопределено време и на пълно работно време, считано от 1 август 2000 г. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

El 22 de noviembre de 1999, Material Research Corporation, posteriormente Praxair MRC, contrató a RE como asistente comercial mediante un contrato de trabajo de duración determinada y a tiempo completo. El 21 de julio de 2000 se modificó dicho contrato, de modo que a partir del 1 de agosto de 2000 se convirtió en un contrato de duración indefinida y a tiempo completo.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"El 22 de noviembre de 1999, Material Research Corporation, posteriormente Praxair MRC, contrató a RE como asistente comercial mediante un contrato de trabajo de duración determinada y a tiempo completo. 22/11/1999";
  "El 22 de noviembre de 1999, Material Research Corporation, posteriormente Praxair MRC, contrató a RE como asistente comercial mediante un contrato de trabajo de duración determinada y a tiempo completo. 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "El 22 de noviembre de 1999, Material Research Corporation, posteriormente Praxair MRC, contrató a RE como asistente comercial mediante un contrato de trabajo de duración determinada y a tiempo completo. 22/11/1999"->"contrato de trabajo de duración determinada y a tiempo completo"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Attendum 21/07/2000";
  "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"duración indefinida y a tiempo completo a partir del 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

RE začala dne 22. listopadu 1999 pracovat na plný úvazek jako obchodní asistentka pro společnost Materials Research Corporation, nyní společnost Praxair MRC, na základě pracovní smlouvy na dobu určitou. Dodatkem ze dne 21. července 2000 byla tato pracovní smlouva s účinností ode dne 1. srpna 2000 změněna na smlouvu na plný úvazek na dobu neurčitou.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"začala dne 22. listopadu 1999 pracovat 22/11/1999";
  "začala dne 22. listopadu 1999 pracovat 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "začala dne 22. listopadu 1999 pracovat 22/11/1999"->"pracovní smlouvy na dobu určitou"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Dodatkem 21/07/2000";
  "Dodatkem 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "Dodatkem 21/07/2000"->"smlouvu na plný úvazek na dobu neurčitou s účinností ode dne 1. srpna 2000 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

Den 22. november 1999 blev RE ansat som salgsassistent i Materials Research Corporation, nu Praxair MRC, ved en tidsbegrænset ansættelseskontrakt og på fuld tid. Ved et tillæg af 21. juli 2000 blev denne ansættelseskontrakt ændret til en tidsubegrænset kontrakt på fuld tid fra den 1. august 2000.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Den 22. november 1999 blev RE ansat som salgsassistent i Materials Research Corporation, nu Praxair MRC, ved en tidsbegrænset ansættelseskontrakt og på fuld tid. 22/11/1999";
  "Den 22. november 1999 blev RE ansat som salgsassistent i Materials Research Corporation, nu Praxair MRC, ved en tidsbegrænset ansættelseskontrakt og på fuld tid. 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "Den 22. november 1999 blev RE ansat som salgsassistent i Materials Research Corporation, nu Praxair MRC, ved en tidsbegrænset ansættelseskontrakt og på fuld tid. 22/11/1999"->"tidsbegrænset ansættelseskontrakt og på fuld tid"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"tillæg 21/07/2000";
  "tillæg 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "tillæg 21/07/2000"->"en tidsubegrænset kontrakt på fuld tid fra den 1. august 2000. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: German

Am 22. November 1999 wurde RE von der Materials Research Corporation, jetzt Praxair MRC, mit einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis als Vertriebsassistentin eingestellt. Durch eine Zusatzvereinbarung vom 21. Juli 2000 wurde dieser Arbeitsvertrag mit Wirkung ab 1. August 2000 in einen unbefristeten Arbeitsvertrag umgewandelt.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"wurde RE von der Materials Research Corporation, jetzt Praxair MRC, mit einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis als Vertriebsassistentin eingestellt. 22/11/1999";
  "wurde RE von der Materials Research Corporation, jetzt Praxair MRC, mit einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis als Vertriebsassistentin eingestellt. 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "wurde RE von der Materials Research Corporation, jetzt Praxair MRC, mit einem befristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis als Vertriebsassistentin eingestellt. 22/11/1999"->"befristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Zusatzvereinbarung 21/07/2000";
  "Zusatzvereinbarung 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "Zusatzvereinbarung 21/07/2000"->"unbefristeten Arbeitsvertrag auf Vollzeitbasis mit Wirkung ab 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

Material Research corporation, nüüd Praxair MRC, võttis RE 22. novembril 1999 tähtajalise täistööajaga töölepingu alusel tööle müügiassistendina. 21. juuli 2000. aasta lisaga muudeti tema tööleping alates 1. augustist 2000 täistööajaga tähtajatuks töölepinguks.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"võttis tööle 22/11/1999";
  "võttis tööle 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "võttis tööle 22/11/1999"->"tähtajalise täistööajaga töölepingu"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Attendum 21/07/2000";
  "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "Attendum 21/07/2000"->"1. augustist 2000 täistööajaga tähtajatuks töölepinguks. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Στις 22 Νοεμβρίου 1999, η RE προσελήφθη στη Materials Research Corporation, νυν Praxair MRC, ως εμπορική συνεργάτιδα δυνάμει συμβάσεως εργασίας ορισμένου χρόνου και πλήρους απασχόλησης. Με τροποποιητική πράξη της 21ης Ιουλίου 2000, η εν λόγω σύμβαση εργασίας μετατράπηκε από 1ης Αυγούστου 2000 σε σύμβαση εργασίας πλήρους απασχόλησης αορίστου χρόνου.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Στις 22 Νοεμβρίου 1999, η RE προσελήφθη 22/11/1999";
  "Στις 22 Νοεμβρίου 1999, η RE προσελήφθη 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "Στις 22 Νοεμβρίου 1999, η RE προσελήφθη 22/11/1999"->"συμβάσεως εργασίας ορισμένου χρόνου και πλήρους απασχόλησης"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"τροποποιητική πράξη 21/07/2000";
  "τροποποιητική πράξη 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "τροποποιητική πράξη 21/07/2000"->"από 1ης Αυγούστου 2000 σε σύμβαση εργασίας πλήρους απασχόλησης αορίστου χρόνου. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: French

Le 22 novembre 1999, RE a été engagée par Materials Research Corporation, devenue Praxair MRC, en qualité d’assistante commerciale, dans le cadre d’un contrat de travail à durée déterminée et à temps plein. Par un avenant du 21 juillet 2000, ce contrat de travail a été transformé en un contrat à temps plein à durée indéterminée, à compter du 1er août 2000.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Le 22 novembre 1999, RE a été engagée par Materials Research Corporation 22/11/1999";
  "Le 22 novembre 1999, RE a été engagée par Materials Research Corporation 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "Le 22 novembre 1999, RE a été engagée par Materials Research Corporation 22/11/1999"->"contrat de travail à durée déterminée et à temps plein"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"un avenant 21/07/2000";
  "un avenant 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "un avenant 21/07/2000"->"un contrat à temps plein à durée indéterminée, à compter du 1er août 2000. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019.
RE v Praxair MRC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None.
Case C-486/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Društvo Material Research Corporation, koji je postao Praxair MRC, zaposlilo je 22. studenoga 1999. osobu RE u svojstvu prodavačice na temelju ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu. Taj ugovor o radu je od 1. kolovoza 2000. na temelju Dodatka od 21. srpnja 2000. postao ugovor o radu na neodređeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RE"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praxair MRC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"zaposlilo je 22. studenoga 1999. osobu RE u svojstvu prodavačice na temelju ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu. 22/11/1999";
  "zaposlilo je 22. studenoga 1999. osobu RE u svojstvu prodavačice na temelju ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu. 22/11/1999"->"RE";
  "zaposlilo je 22. studenoga 1999. osobu RE u svojstvu prodavačice na temelju ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu. 22/11/1999"->"ugovor o radu na određeno vrijeme u punom radnom vremenu"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Dodatka 21/07/2000";
  "Dodatka 21/07/2000"->"RE";
  "Dodatka 21/07/2000"->"1. kolovoza 2000. 01/08/2000"[dir=none];
  "Materials Research Corporation"->"Praxair MRC";
}