mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

In tali circostanze il Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Corte d’appello di Maribor) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:
«Se, in considerazione del principio di effettività del diritto dell’Unione europea, la direttiva 93/13 (…) debba essere interpretata nel senso che, nell’ambito del procedimento esecutivo, il giudice dell’esecuzione è tenuto d’ufficio a rifiutare l’esecuzione in ragione di una clausola abusiva contenuta in un atto notarile direttamente esecutivo (titolo esecutivo), in un caso quale quello in esame, in cui la normativa processuale dello Stato membro non attribuisce al giudice dell’esecuzione un’effettiva possibilità di interrompere o sospendere l’esecuzione (su istanza del debitore o d’ufficio) sino alla decisione di merito definitiva in ordine al carattere abusivo della clausola, pronunciata all’esito di un processo di cognizione promosso dal debitore quale consumatore».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la Corte"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Corte d’appello di Maribor)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Corte d’appello di Maribor)"->"sospendere il procedimento"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Corte d’appello di Maribor)"->"la seguente questione pregiudiziale";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"la Corte";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"Se, in considerazione del principio di effettività del diritto dell’Unione europea, la direttiva 93/13 (…) debba essere interpretata nel senso che, nell’ambito del procedimento esecutivo, il giudice dell’esecuzione è tenuto d’ufficio a rifiutare l’esecuzione in ragione di una clausola abusiva contenuta in un atto notarile direttamente esecutivo (titolo esecutivo), in un caso quale quello in esame, in cui la normativa processuale dello Stato membro non attribuisce al giudice dell’esecuzione un’effettiva possibilità di interrompere o sospendere l’esecuzione (su istanza del debitore o d’ufficio) sino alla decisione di merito definitiva in ordine al carattere abusivo della clausola, pronunciata all’esito di un processo di cognizione promosso dal debitore quale consumatore"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Šajos apstākļos Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboras apelācijas tiesa) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai, ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības tiesību efektivitātes principu, [..] Direktīva 93/13 ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka piespiedu izpildes procedūrā tiesai, kurā iesniegts lūgums par izpildi, pēc savas ierosmes tā ir jāatsaka tādēļ, ka tieši izpildāmajā notariālajā aktā (izpildu dokumentā) ir iekļauts negodīgs noteikums, tādā gadījumā kā šajā lietā, kurā dalībvalsts procesuālajos tiesību aktos izpildes tiesai nav piešķirta faktiska iespēja apturēt vai atlikt piespiedu izpildi (pēc parādnieka lūguma vai savas ierosmes) līdz galīgam spriedumam pēc būtības par noteikuma negodīgumu, kas taisīts tiesvedībā pēc būtības, ko uzsācis parādnieks kā patērētājs?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboras apelācijas tiesa))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboras apelācijas tiesa))"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboras apelācijas tiesa))"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai, ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības tiesību efektivitātes principu, [..] Direktīva 93/13 ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka piespiedu izpildes procedūrā tiesai, kurā iesniegts lūgums par izpildi, pēc savas ierosmes tā ir jāatsaka tādēļ, ka tieši izpildāmajā notariālajā aktā (izpildu dokumentā) ir iekļauts negodīgs noteikums, tādā gadījumā kā šajā lietā, kurā dalībvalsts procesuālajos tiesību aktos izpildes tiesai nav piešķirta faktiska iespēja apturēt vai atlikt piespiedu izpildi (pēc parādnieka lūguma vai savas ierosmes) līdz galīgam spriedumam pēc būtības par noteikuma negodīgumu, kas taisīts tiesvedībā pēc būtības, ko uzsācis parādnieks kā patērētājs?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Šiomis aplinkybėmis Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboro apeliacinis teismas) nutarė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui tokį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar, atsižvelgiant į Europos Sąjungos teisės veiksmingumo principą, Tarybos direktyva 93/13 <…> turi būti aiškinama taip, kad per vykdymo procedūrą teismas savo iniciatyva turi neleisti vykdyti procedūros dėl nesąžiningos sąlygos, įtrauktos į tiesiogiai vykdomą notaro aktą (vykdomąjį dokumentą), jei tokiu atveju, kaip nagrinėjamas, valstybės narės procesinės teisės normos tokiam teismui nesuteikia realios galimybės (skolininko prašymu arba savo iniciatyva) nutraukti arba sustabdyti reikalavimo vykdymą, kol atskiroje skolininko, kaip vartotojo, ieškiniu pradėtoje byloje bus priimtas galutinis teismo sprendimas dėl nesąžiningos sąlygos negaliojimo?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboro apeliacinis teismas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboro apeliacinis teismas)"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Mariboro apeliacinis teismas)"->"Prašymas Teisingumo Teismui priimti prejudicinį sprendimą";
  "Prašymas Teisingumo Teismui priimti prejudicinį sprendimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "Prašymas Teisingumo Teismui priimti prejudicinį sprendimą"->"Ar, atsižvelgiant į Europos Sąjungos teisės veiksmingumo principą, Tarybos direktyva 93/13 <…> turi būti aiškinama taip, kad per vykdymo procedūrą teismas savo iniciatyva turi neleisti vykdyti procedūros dėl nesąžiningos sąlygos, įtrauktos į tiesiogiai vykdomą notaro aktą (vykdomąjį dokumentą), jei tokiu atveju, kaip nagrinėjamas, valstybės narės procesinės teisės normos tokiam teismui nesuteikia realios galimybės (skolininko prašymu arba savo iniciatyva) nutraukti arba sustabdyti reikalavimo vykdymą, kol atskiroje skolininko, kaip vartotojo, ieškiniu pradėtoje byloje bus priimtas galutinis teismo sprendimas dėl nesąžiningos sąlygos negaliojimo?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

E körülmények között a Višje sodišče v Mariboru (maribori felsőbíróság) úgy határozott, hogy az eljárást felfüggeszti, és előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé:
„Az európai uniós jog tényleges érvényesülésének elvére figyelemmel, úgy kell‑e értelmezni a 93/13/EGK […] irányelvet, hogy a végrehajtási bíróság a végrehajtási eljárás során a közvetlenül végrehajtható közjegyzői okiratban (végrehajtható okiratban) foglalt tisztességtelen szerződési feltétel miatt köteles hivatalból megtagadni a végrehajtást a jelen ügyhöz hasonló olyan ügyben, amelyben a tagállami eljárásjogi szabályozás nem biztosítja a végrehajtási bíróság számára annak tényleges lehetőségét, hogy a végrehajtást az adós mint fogyasztó által indított megállapítási perben a szerződési feltétel tisztességtelen jellegére vonatkozó jogerős érdemi határozat meghozataláig (az adós kérelmére vagy hivatalból) megszakítsa vagy felfüggessze?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "a Bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (maribori felsőbíróság)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (maribori felsőbíróság)"->"az eljárást felfüggeszti"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (maribori felsőbíróság)"->"Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"a Bíróság";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"Az európai uniós jog tényleges érvényesülésének elvére figyelemmel, úgy kell‑e értelmezni a 93/13/EGK […] irányelvet, hogy a végrehajtási bíróság a végrehajtási eljárás során a közvetlenül végrehajtható közjegyzői okiratban (végrehajtható okiratban) foglalt tisztességtelen szerződési feltétel miatt köteles hivatalból megtagadni a végrehajtást a jelen ügyhöz hasonló olyan ügyben, amelyben a tagállami eljárásjogi szabályozás nem biztosítja a végrehajtási bíróság számára annak tényleges lehetőségét, hogy a végrehajtást az adós mint fogyasztó által indított megállapítási perben a szerződési feltétel tisztességtelen jellegére vonatkozó jogerős érdemi határozat meghozataláig (az adós kérelmére vagy hivatalból) megszakítsa vagy felfüggessze?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Maltese

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor) iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċedura u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li jmiss:
“Fid-dawl tal-prinċipju ta’ effettività tad-dritt tal-Unjoni, id-Direttiva [93/13] għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li, fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura ta’ eżekuzzjoni forzata, l-imħallef tal-eżekuzzjoni għandu jirrifjuta ex officio l-eżekuzzjoni minħabba klawżola inġusta f’att notarili direttament eżekuttiv (titolu eżekuttiv) f’każ fejn, bħal f’dan il-każ, is-sistema proċedurali ta’ Stat Membru ma toffrix lill-imħallef il-possibbiltà effettiva li jissospendi jew li jiddifferixxi l-eżekuzzjoni forzata (fuq talba tad-debitur jew ex officio) sakemm tingħata deċiżjoni finali dwar in-natura inġusta tal-klawżola fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura kontenzjuża mressqa mid-debitur bħala konsumatur?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "il-Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor))"->"tissospendi l-proċedura"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor))"->"d-domanda preliminari";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"il-Višje sodišče v Mariboru (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Maribor)";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"Fid-dawl tal-prinċipju ta’ effettività tad-dritt tal-Unjoni, id-Direttiva [93/13] għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li, fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura ta’ eżekuzzjoni forzata, l-imħallef tal-eżekuzzjoni għandu jirrifjuta ex officio l-eżekuzzjoni minħabba klawżola inġusta f’att notarili direttament eżekuttiv (titolu eżekuttiv) f’każ fejn, bħal f’dan il-każ, is-sistema proċedurali ta’ Stat Membru ma toffrix lill-imħallef il-possibbiltà effettiva li jissospendi jew li jiddifferixxi l-eżekuzzjoni forzata (fuq talba tad-debitur jew ex officio) sakemm tingħata deċiżjoni finali dwar in-natura inġusta tal-klawżola fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura kontenzjuża mressqa mid-debitur bħala konsumatur?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

In die omstandigheden heeft de Višje sodišče v Mariboru de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof de volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd:
„Moet richtlijn [93/13], gelet op het beginsel van doeltreffendheid van het recht van de Europese Unie, aldus worden uitgelegd dat de executierechter, in het kader van de procedure van gedwongen tenuitvoerlegging, de tenuitvoerlegging wegens een oneerlijk beding in een onmiddellijk uitvoerbare notariële akte (executoriale titel) ambtshalve moet weigeren in een geval als in het onderhavige geding, waarin de procesregels van de lidstaat de executierechter geen doeltreffende mogelijkheid bieden om (op verzoek van de debiteur of ambtshalve) de tenuitvoerlegging op te schorten of uit te stellen zolang in de procedure ten gronde, die door de debiteur als consument aanhangig is gemaakt, geen definitieve beslissing inzake de oneerlijke aard van het beding is gegeven?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "het Hof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru)"->"de behandeling van de zaak geschorst"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Višje sodišče v Mariboru)"->"volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd";
  "volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd"->"het Hof";
  "volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd"->"Moet richtlijn [93/13], gelet op het beginsel van doeltreffendheid van het recht van de Europese Unie, aldus worden uitgelegd dat de executierechter, in het kader van de procedure van gedwongen tenuitvoerlegging, de tenuitvoerlegging wegens een oneerlijk beding in een onmiddellijk uitvoerbare notariële akte (executoriale titel) ambtshalve moet weigeren in een geval als in het onderhavige geding, waarin de procesregels van de lidstaat de executierechter geen doeltreffende mogelijkheid bieden om (op verzoek van de debiteur of ambtshalve) de tenuitvoerlegging op te schorten of uit te stellen zolang in de procedure ten gronde, die door de debiteur als consument aanhangig is gemaakt, geen definitieve beslissing inzake de oneerlijke aard van het beding is gegeven?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

W tych okolicznościach Višje sodišče v Mariboru (sąd apelacyjny w Mariborze) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:
„Czy, biorąc pod uwagę zasadę skuteczności prawa Unii, dyrektywę [93/13] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że w ramach postępowania egzekucyjnego sąd wykonawczy jest zobowiązany z urzędu odmówić egzekucji ze względu na nieuczciwy warunek zawarty w akcie notarialnym stanowiącym podstawę do bezpośredniego wszczęcia egzekucji (tytuł wykonawczy), w przypadku takim jak rozpatrywany w niniejszej sprawie, w którym przepis proceduralny państwa członkowskiego nie przyznaje sądowi wykonawczemu możliwości wstrzymania lub zawieszenia egzekucji (na wniosek dłużnika lub z urzędu) do chwili ostatecznego orzeczenia co do istoty w przedmiocie nieuczciwego charakteru warunku, wydanego w wyniku postępowania rozpoznawczego wszczętego przez dłużnika jako konsumenta?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Trybunału"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (sąd apelacyjny w Mariborze)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (sąd apelacyjny w Mariborze)"->"zawiesić postępowanie"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (sąd apelacyjny w Mariborze)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Czy, biorąc pod uwagę zasadę skuteczności prawa Unii, dyrektywę [93/13] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że w ramach postępowania egzekucyjnego sąd wykonawczy jest zobowiązany z urzędu odmówić egzekucji ze względu na nieuczciwy warunek zawarty w akcie notarialnym stanowiącym podstawę do bezpośredniego wszczęcia egzekucji (tytuł wykonawczy), w przypadku takim jak rozpatrywany w niniejszej sprawie, w którym przepis proceduralny państwa członkowskiego nie przyznaje sądowi wykonawczemu możliwości wstrzymania lub zawieszenia egzekucji (na wniosek dłużnika lub z urzędu) do chwili ostatecznego orzeczenia co do istoty w przedmiocie nieuczciwego charakteru warunku, wydanego w wyniku postępowania rozpoznawczego wszczętego przez dłużnika jako konsumenta?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Romanian

În aceste condiții, Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Curtea de Apel din Maribor) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:
„În considerarea principiului efectivității dreptului Uniunii, Directiva 93/13 […] trebuie interpretată în sensul că, în cadrul unei proceduri de executare silită, instanța sesizată cu o cerere de executare este ținută din oficiu să o refuze din cauza unei clauze abuzive conținute într‑un act notarial direct executoriu (titlu executoriu), în ipoteza în care sistemul procedural al unui stat membru nu îi oferă instanței o posibilitate efectivă de a întrerupe sau de a suspenda executarea silită (la cererea debitorului sau din oficiu) până la adoptarea unei decizii definitive pe fond cu privire la caracterul abuziv al clauzei, pronunțată în cadrul unei proceduri de judecată inițiate de debitor în calitate de consumator?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Curtea de Apel din Maribor)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Curtea de Apel din Maribor)"->"suspende judecarea cauzei"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Curtea de Apel din Maribor)"->"următoarea întrebare preliminară:";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară:"->"Curții";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară:"->"În considerarea principiului efectivității dreptului Uniunii, Directiva 93/13 […] trebuie interpretată în sensul că, în cadrul unei proceduri de executare silită, instanța sesizată cu o cerere de executare este ținută din oficiu să o refuze din cauza unei clauze abuzive conținute într‑un act notarial direct executoriu (titlu executoriu), în ipoteza în care sistemul procedural al unui stat membru nu îi oferă instanței o posibilitate efectivă de a întrerupe sau de a suspenda executarea silită (la cererea debitorului sau din oficiu) până la adoptarea unei decizii definitive pe fond cu privire la caracterul abuziv al clauzei, pronunțată în cadrul unei proceduri de judecată inițiate de debitor în calitate de consumator?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Under dessa omständigheter beslutade Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor) att vilandeförklara målet och ställa följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen:
”Ska rådets direktiv [93/13] mot bakgrund av unionsrättens effektivitetsprincip tolkas så, att en domstol som mottagit en begäran om verkställighet är skyldig att i verkställighetsförfarandet ex officio neka verkställighet på grund av ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor i en direkt verkställbar notariehandling (exekutionstitel) i ett fall som det förevarande, där den domstolen enligt medlemsstatens processrätt inte har någon reell möjlighet att avbryta eller skjuta upp verkställigheten (på begäran av gäldenären eller ex officio) tills ett slutgiltigt beslut i sak angående avtalsvillkorets oskälighet meddelas i det fastställelseförfarande som gäldenären har inlett i sin egenskap av konsument?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor)"->"vilandeförklara målet"[dir=none];
  "Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor)"->"tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen";
  "tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Appellationsdomstolen i Maribor)";
  "tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"Ska rådets direktiv [93/13] mot bakgrund av unionsrättens effektivitetsprincip tolkas så, att en domstol som mottagit en begäran om verkställighet är skyldig att i verkställighetsförfarandet ex officio neka verkställighet på grund av ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor i en direkt verkställbar notariehandling (exekutionstitel) i ett fall som det förevarande, där den domstolen enligt medlemsstatens processrätt inte har någon reell möjlighet att avbryta eller skjuta upp verkställigheten (på begäran av gäldenären eller ex officio) tills ett slutgiltigt beslut i sak angående avtalsvillkorets oskälighet meddelas i det fastställelseförfarande som gäldenären har inlett i sin egenskap av konsument?"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: English

Ms Vandenbon was employed by WTG Retail as a manager of one of the clothes shops operated by that undertaking. In this capacity, Ms Vandenbon, on 24 June 2015, gave Ms Hakelbracht a job interview for a job as a salesperson from 1 August 2015. During that interview, Ms Hakelbracht stated that she was 3 months pregnant.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "WTG Retail"->"Ms Vandenbon"[label="Employment"dir=none];
   "Ms Vandenbon"->"Ms Hakelbracht"[label="Job interview"];
   "Ms Hakelbracht"->"3 months pregnant"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

Г‑жа Vandenbon е била назначена от WTG Retail като управител на един от магазините за дрехи, стопанисвани от това предприятие. В това си качество на 24 юни 2015 г. г‑жа Vandenbon провежда интервю за работа с г‑жа Hakelbracht за позицията на продавач, считано от 1 август 2015 г. На това интервю г‑жа Hakelbracht заявява, че е бременна в третия месец.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "г‑жа Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "г‑жа Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"г‑жа Vandenbon"[label="работа"dir=none];
  "г‑жа Vandenbon"->"г‑жа Hakelbracht"[label="интервю за работа"];
  "г‑жа Hakelbracht"->"бременна в третия месец"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

La Sra. Vandenbon estaba empleada por WTG Retail como gerente de una de las tiendas de ropa explotadas por esa empresa. En esa condición, la Sra. Vandenbon efectuó, el 24 de junio de 2015, una entrevista a la Sra. Hakelbracht para su contratación como vendedora a partir del 1 de agosto de 2015. En esa entrevista, la Sra. Hakelbracht indicó que estaba embarazada de tres meses.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sra. Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sra. Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Sra. Vandenbon"[label="empleada"dir=none];
  "Sra. Vandenbon"->"Sra. Hakelbracht"[label="una entrevista"];
  "Sra. Hakelbracht"->"embarazada de tres meses"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Tine Vandenbon byla zaměstnána společností WTG Retail jakožto vedoucí jednoho z obchodů s oděvy provozovaných touto společností. V této pozici vedla dne 24. června 2015 pracovní pohovor s J. Hakelbracht týkající se místa prodavačky, které mělo být obsazeno od 1. srpna 2015. Při tomto pohovoru J. Hakelbracht uvedla, že je ve třetím měsíci těhotenství.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="zaměstnána"dir=none];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="pracovní pohovor"];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"ve třetím měsíci těhotenství"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

Tine Vandenbon var ansat hos WTG Retail som bestyrer af en af de tøjbutikker, der drives af denne virksomhed. Den 24. juni 2015 gennemførte Tine Vandenbon i denne egenskab et jobinterview med Jamina Hakelbracht vedrørende en stilling som sælger, som skulle besættes fra den 1. august 2015. Under dette interview fortalte Jamina Hakelbracht, at hun var gravid i tredje måned.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="ansat hos WTG Retail som bestyrer af en af de tøjbutikker, der drives af denne virksomhed. Den 24. juni 2015 gennemførte Tine Vandenbon i denne egenskab et jobinterview med Jamina Hakelbracht vedrørende en stilling som sælger, som skulle besættes fra den 1. august 2015."dir=none];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="jobinterview"];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"gravid i tredje måned."[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: German

Frau Vandenbon war bei WTG Retail als Leiterin eines der Bekleidungsgeschäfte beschäftigt, die von diesem Unternehmen betrieben werden. In dieser Eigenschaft führte Frau Vandenbon am 24. Juni 2015 mit Frau Hakelbracht ein Bewerbungsgespräch für eine Stelle als Verkäuferin, die ab dem 1. August 2015 zu besetzen war. Bei diesem Gespräch teilte Frau Hakelbracht mit, dass sie drei Monate schwanger sei.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Frau Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Frau Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Frau Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="beschäftigt"dir=none];
  "Frau Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"Frau Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="Bewerbungsgespräch"];
  "Frau Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"drei Monate schwanger"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

T. Vandenbon töötas WTG Retailis ühe nimetatud ettevõtja käitatavatest rõivakauplustest juhatajana. Kaupluse juhatajana viis T. Vandenbon 24. juunil 2015 läbi töövestluse J. Hakelbrachtiga müüja ametikohal töötamiseks alates 1. augustist 2015. Töövestlusel andis J. Hakelbracht teada, et on kolmandat kuud rase.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="töötamiseks"dir=none];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="Töövestlus"];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"kolmandat kuud rase"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Η Τ. Vandenbon εργαζόταν για τη WTG Retail ως διευθύντρια ενός από τα καταστήματα ρούχων που εκμεταλλευόταν η επιχείρηση αυτή. Υπό την ως άνω ιδιότητα, η Τ. Vandenbon κάλεσε σε συνέντευξη, στις 24 Ιουνίου 2015, την J. Hakelbracht σχετικά με την πρόσληψη σε θέση πωλήτριας η οποία επρόκειτο να πληρωθεί από την 1η Αυγούστου 2015. Κατά τη συνέντευξη αυτή, η J. Hakelbracht επισήμανε ότι ήταν έγκυος τριών μηνών.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Τ. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Τ. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Τ. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="πρόσληψη"dir=none];
  "Τ. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"Τ. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="συνέντευξη"];
  "Τ. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"έγκυος τριών μηνών"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: French

Mme Vandenbon était employée par WTG Retail en tant que gérante d’un des magasins de vêtements exploités par cette entreprise. En cette qualité, Mme Vandenbon a, le 24 juin 2015, fait passer un entretien d’embauche à Mme Hakelbracht pour un poste de vendeuse à pourvoir à partir du 1er août 2015. Lors de cet entretien, Mme Hakelbracht a indiqué être enceinte de trois mois.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Mme Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Mme Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Mme Vandenbon"[label="embauche"dir=none];
  "Mme Vandenbon"->"Mme Hakelbracht"[label="entretien d’embauche"];
  "Mme Hakelbracht"->"enceinte de trois mois"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

T. Vandenbon bila je zaposlena u društvu WTG Retail kao voditeljica jedne od njegovih prodavaonica odjeće. Ona je u tom svojstvu 24. lipnja 2015. održala razgovor za posao s J. Hakelbracht radi popunjavanja radnog mjesta prodavačice od 1. kolovoza 2015. Na tom je razgovoru J. Hakelbracht navela da je trudna tri mjeseca.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="zaposlena"dir=none];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="razgovor za posao"];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"trudna tri mjeseca"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

La sig.ra Vadenbon era impiegata presso la WTG Retail in quanto store manager di uno dei negozi di abbigliamento gestiti da tale impresa. In tale veste, il 24 giugno 2015 la sig.ra Vandenbon ha sottoposto a colloquio di assunzione la sig.ra Hakelbracht per un posto di commessa addetta alle vendite con decorrenza dal 1o agosto 2015. Nel corso di tale colloquio, la sig.ra Hakelbracht ha affermato di essere incinta di tre mesi.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sig.ra Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sig.ra Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"sig.ra Vandenbon"[label="assunzione"dir=none];
  "sig.ra Vandenbon"->"sig.ra Hakelbracht"[label="colloquio di assunzione"];
  "sig.ra Hakelbracht"->"incinta di tre mesi"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

T. Vandenbon bija nodarbināta pie WTG Retail par vadītāju vienā no šī uzņēmuma pārvaldībā esošajiem apģērbu veikaliem. Šādā amatā T. Vandenbon2015. gada 24. jūnijā uzaicināja uz darba interviju J. Hakelbracht saistībā ar pārdevējas amata vietu, kas atbrīvojās no 2015. gada 1. augusta. Šajā intervijā J Hakelbracht atklāja, ka viņa ir grūtniecības trešajā mēnesī.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="nodarbināta"dir=none];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="darba interviju"];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"grūtniecības trešajā mēnesī"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

E. Vandenbon dirbo vienos iš WTG Retail įmonei priklausančių drabužių parduotuvių vadove. 2015 m. birželio 24 d. E. Vandenbon, kaip vadovė, surengė su J. Hakelbracht pokalbį dėl pardavėjos darbo nuo 2015 m. rugpjūčio 1 d. Per šį pokalbį J. Hakelbracht pranešė, kad yra trečią mėnesį nėščia.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "E. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "E. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"E. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="dirbo"dir=none];
  "E. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"E. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="pokalbį dėl pardavėjos darbo"];
  "E. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"trečią mėnesį nėščia"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

T. Vandenbon a WTG Retail alkalmazásában állt az e vállalkozás által működtetett egyik ruházati üzlet vezetőjeként. T. Vandenbon e minőségében 2015. június 24‑én egy 2015. augusztus 1‑jétől betöltendő eladói álláshely kapcsán felvételi beszélgetést tartott J. Hakelbrachttal. E beszélgetés során J. Hakelbracht jelezte, hogy három hónapos terhes.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="alkalmazásában állt"dir=none];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="felvételi beszélgetést"];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"három hónapos terhes"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Maltese

T. Vandenbon kienet impjegata minn WTG Retail bħala maniġer ta’ wieħed mill-ħwienet tal-ħwejjeġ operati minn din l-impriża. F’din il-kapaċità, fl-24 ta’ Ġunju 2015, T. Vandenbon għamlet intervista għal reklutaġġ lil J. Hakielbracht għal kariga ta’ bejjiegħa li kellha tibda fl-1 ta’ Awwissu 2015. Matul din l-intervista, J. Hakelbracht indikat li kellha tliet xhur tqala.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="impjegata"dir=none];
  "T. Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="intervista għal reklutaġġ"];
  "T. Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"tliet xhur tqala."[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

Vandenbon was in dienst van WTG Retail als storemanager van een door deze onderneming geëxploiteerde kledingwinkel. In die hoedanigheid had Vandenbon op 24 juni 2015 een sollicitatiegesprek met Hakelbracht voor een vanaf 1 augustus 2015 te vergeven baan als verkoopster. Tijdens dat gesprek deelde Hakelbracht mee dat zij drie maanden zwanger was.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hakelbracht Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Hakelbracht Vandenbon"[label="in dienst van WTG Retail als storemanager"dir=none];
  "Hakelbracht Vandenbon"->"Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[label="sollicitatiegesprek"];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"drie maanden zwanger"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019.
Jamina Hakelbracht and Others v WTG Retail BVBA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee.
Case C-404/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

Tine Vandenbon była zatrudniona w WTG Retail jako kierownik jednego ze sklepów odzieżowych prowadzonych przez to przedsiębiorstwo. W tym charakterze T. Vandenbon w dniu 24 czerwca 2015 r. przeprowadziła rozmowę kwalifikacyjną z J. Hakelbracht na stanowisko sprzedawcy, mającą rozpocząć pracę od dnia 1 sierpnia 2015 r. W trakcie tej rozmowy J. Hakelbracht poinformowała T. Vandenbon, że jest w trzecim miesiącu ciąży.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "WTG Retail"->"Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"[label="zatrudniona"dir=none];
  "Tine Vandenbon Vandenbon"->"Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"[label="rozmowę kwalifikacyjną"];
  "Tine Vandenbon Hakelbracht"->"w trzecim miesiącu ciąży"[dir=none];
    
}