mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
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

In those circumstances, the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Labour Court, Antwerp, Belgium) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive [2006/54] be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Labour Court of Antwerp, Belgium)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Labour Court of Antwerp, Belgium)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
   "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Labour Court of Antwerp, Belgium)"->"Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive [2006/54] be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings?"[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

При тези обстоятелства Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (първоинстанционен съд по трудови дела Антверпен) решава да спре производството и да постави на Съда следния преюдициален въпрос:
„Следва ли правото на Съюза, и по-специално член 24 от Директива [2006/54], да се тълкува в смисъл, че не допуска национална правна уредба, която предоставя защита от репресивни действия, от една страна, единствено на лицата, които в рамките на производството по разглеждане на дадена жалба са се явили като свидетели и са представили свидетелски показания пред лицето, до което е подадена жалбата, в подписан и датиран документ относно фактите, които те сами са видели или чули и които се отнасят до разглеждания в жалбата случай, и от друга страна, на лицата, дали свидетелски показания пред съд?“.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Съда"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (първоинстанционен съд по трудови дела Антверпен)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (първоинстанционен съд по трудови дела Антверпен)"->"спре производството"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (първоинстанционен съд по трудови дела Антверпен)"->"следния преюдициален въпрос";
  "следния преюдициален въпрос"->"Съда";
  "следния преюдициален въпрос"->"Следва ли правото на Съюза, и по-специално член 24 от Директива [2006/54], да се тълкува в смисъл, че не допуска национална правна уредба, която предоставя защита от репресивни действия, от една страна, единствено на лицата, които в рамките на производството по разглеждане на дадена жалба са се явили като свидетели и са представили свидетелски показания пред лицето, до което е подадена жалбата, в подписан и датиран документ относно фактите, които те сами са видели или чули и които се отнасят до разглеждания в жалбата случай, и от друга страна, на лицата, дали свидетелски показания пред съд?"[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

En tales circunstancias, el arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunal de lo Laboral de Amberes) decidió suspender el procedimiento y plantear al Tribunal de Justicia la siguiente cuestión prejudicial:
«¿Debe interpretarse el Derecho de la Unión, y en concreto el artículo 24 de la Directiva [2006/54], en el sentido de que se opone a una normativa nacional que concede protección contra las represalias ejercidas sobre personas que actúen en calidad de testigos exclusivamente a las personas que, en el marco de la investigación de una reclamación, ponen en conocimiento de la persona contra la que se han presentado la reclamación, en un documento firmado y fechado, los hechos que ellas mismas ha visto u oído y que guardan relación con la situación que constituye el objeto de la reclamación, o que declaran como testigos en un procedimiento judicial?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tribunal de Justicia"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunal de lo Laboral de Amberes)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunal de lo Laboral de Amberes)"->"suspender el procedimiento"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunal de lo Laboral de Amberes)"->"la siguiente cuestión prejudicial";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justicia";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"¿Debe interpretarse el Derecho de la Unión, y en concreto el artículo 24 de la Directiva [2006/54], en el sentido de que se opone a una normativa nacional que concede protección contra las represalias ejercidas sobre personas que actúen en calidad de testigos exclusivamente a las personas que, en el marco de la investigación de una reclamación, ponen en conocimiento de la persona contra la que se han presentado la reclamación, en un documento firmado y fechado, los hechos que ellas mismas ha visto u oído y que guardan relación con la situación que constituye el objeto de la reclamación, o que declaran como testigos en un procedimiento judicial?"[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

Za těchto podmínek se arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (pracovní soud v Antverpách) rozhodl přerušit řízení a položit Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku:
„Je třeba unijní právo a konkrétně článek 24 směrnice [2006/54] vykládat v tom smyslu, že brání vnitrostátní právní úpravě, která poskytuje ochranu před odvetnými opatřeními upravenou ve prospěch osob, které vystupují jako svědci, výlučně osobám, které v rámci prošetřování stížnosti sdělí osobě, u které byla stížnost podána, v dokumentu opatřeném datem a podpisem skutečnosti, které samy viděly nebo slyšely, a které souvisejí se situací, jež je předmětem stížnosti, jakož i osobám, které vypovídají jako svědci před soudem?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Soudnímu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (pracovní soud v Antverpách)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (pracovní soud v Antverpách)"->"přerušit řízení"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (pracovní soud v Antverpách)"->"Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku";
  "Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku"->"Soudnímu dvoru";
  "Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku"->"Je třeba unijní právo a konkrétně článek 24 směrnice [2006/54] vykládat v tom smyslu, že brání vnitrostátní právní úpravě, která poskytuje ochranu před odvetnými opatřeními upravenou ve prospěch osob, které vystupují jako svědci, výlučně osobám, které v rámci prošetřování stížnosti sdělí osobě, u které byla stížnost podána, v dokumentu opatřeném datem a podpisem skutečnosti, které samy viděly nebo slyšely, a které souvisejí se situací, jež je předmětem stížnosti, jakož i osobám, které vypovídají jako svědci před soudem?"[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

På denne baggrund har arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbejdsretten i første instans i Antwerpen, Belgien) besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
»Skal EU-retten, navnlig artikel 24 i [direktiv 2006/54], fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for en national ordning om beskyttelse af vidner mod viktimisering, som kun giver beskyttelse til personer, som i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af en klage i et dateret og underskrevet dokument bringer de faktiske omstændigheder, som de selv har set eller hørt, og som vedrører den situation, der er genstand for klagen, til kundskab for den person, til hvem klagen er indgivet, eller [til] personer, som [ind]træder som vidne[r] for en ret?«

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbejdsretten i første instans i Antwerpen, Belgien))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbejdsretten i første instans i Antwerpen, Belgien))"->"udsætte sagen"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbejdsretten i første instans i Antwerpen, Belgien))"->"følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål";
  "følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"Domstolen";
  "følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"Skal EU-retten, navnlig artikel 24 i [direktiv 2006/54], fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for en national ordning om beskyttelse af vidner mod viktimisering, som kun giver beskyttelse til personer, som i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af en klage i et dateret og underskrevet dokument bringer de faktiske omstændigheder, som de selv har set eller hørt, og som vedrører den situation, der er genstand for klagen, til kundskab for den person, til hvem klagen er indgivet, eller [til] personer, som [ind]træder som vidne[r] for en ret?"[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

Unter diesen Umständen hat die Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeitsgericht Antwerpen) das Verfahren ausgesetzt und dem Gerichtshof folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt:
Ist das Unionsrecht und insbesondere Art. 24 der Richtlinie 2006/54 dahin auszulegen, dass es einer nationalen Regelung entgegensteht, die den Schutz von Personen, die als Zeugen auftreten, vor Viktimisierung ausschließlich Personen gewährt, die im Rahmen der Untersuchung einer Beschwerde die Person, bei der die Beschwerde eingereicht wird, in einem unterzeichneten und datierten Dokument über die Begebenheiten informieren, die sie selbst gesehen oder gehört haben und die die Situation betreffen, die Gegenstand der Beschwerde ist, oder die als Zeuge vor Gericht auftreten?

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "der Gerichtshof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeitsgericht Antwerpen))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeitsgericht Antwerpen))"->"das Verfahren ausgesetzt"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Arbeitsgericht Antwerpen))"->"folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt";
  "folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt"->"der Gerichtshof";
  "folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt"->"Ist das Unionsrecht und insbesondere Art. 24 der Richtlinie 2006/54 dahin auszulegen, dass es einer nationalen Regelung entgegensteht, die den Schutz von Personen, die als Zeugen auftreten, vor Viktimisierung ausschließlich Personen gewährt, die im Rahmen der Untersuchung einer Beschwerde die Person, bei der die Beschwerde eingereicht wird, in einem unterzeichneten und datierten Dokument über die Begebenheiten informieren, die sie selbst gesehen oder gehört haben und die die Situation betreffen, die Gegenstand der Beschwerde ist, oder die als Zeuge vor Gericht auftreten?"[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

Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, το arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο εργατικών διαφορών Αμβέρσας) αποφάσισε να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία και να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο το ακόλουθο προδικαστικό ερώτημα:
«Έχει το δίκαιο της Ένωσης και, συγκεκριμένα, το άρθρο 24 της οδηγίας [2006/54] την έννοια ότι αντιτίθεται σε εθνική ρύθμιση κατά την οποία η προστασία μαρτύρων από αντίποινα παρέχεται μόνον στα πρόσωπα τα οποία, στο πλαίσιο εξετάσεως καταγγελίας, ενημερώνουν, με υπογεγραμμένο και χρονολογημένο έγγραφο, το πρόσωπο στο οποίο υποβάλλεται η καταγγελία σχετικά με τα πραγματικά περιστατικά που είδαν ή άκουσαν προσωπικά και που αφορούν την κατάσταση η οποία αποτελεί το αντικείμενο της καταγγελίας καθώς και στα πρόσωπα τα οποία καταθέτουν ως μάρτυρες ενώπιον δικαστηρίου;»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο εργατικών διαφορών Αμβέρσας)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο εργατικών διαφορών Αμβέρσας)"->"να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο εργατικών διαφορών Αμβέρσας)"->"προδικαστικό ερώτημα";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Δικαστήριο";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Έχει το δίκαιο της Ένωσης και, συγκεκριμένα, το άρθρο 24 της οδηγίας [2006/54] την έννοια ότι αντιτίθεται σε εθνική ρύθμιση κατά την οποία η προστασία μαρτύρων από αντίποινα παρέχεται μόνον στα πρόσωπα τα οποία, στο πλαίσιο εξετάσεως καταγγελίας, ενημερώνουν, με υπογεγραμμένο και χρονολογημένο έγγραφο, το πρόσωπο στο οποίο υποβάλλεται η καταγγελία σχετικά με τα πραγματικά περιστατικά που είδαν ή άκουσαν προσωπικά και που αφορούν την κατάσταση η οποία αποτελεί το αντικείμενο της καταγγελίας καθώς και στα πρόσωπα τα οποία καταθέτουν ως μάρτυρες ενώπιον δικαστηρίου;"[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

Dans ces circonstances, l’arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (tribunal du travail d’Anvers) a décidé de surseoir à statuer et de poser à la Cour la question préjudicielle suivante :
« Le droit de l’Union et, plus précisément, l’article 24 de la directive [2006/54], doivent-ils être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une législation nationale en vertu de laquelle la protection contre les rétorsions prévue en faveur des personnes agissant comme témoin est exclusivement accordée aux personnes qui, dans le cadre de l’instruction d’une plainte, font connaître à la personne auprès de qui la plainte a été introduite, dans un document daté et signé, les faits qu’elles ont elles-mêmes vus ou entendus et qui sont en relation avec la situation qui fait l’objet de la plainte, ainsi qu’aux personnes qui interviennent en tant que témoins en justice ? »

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la Cour"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (tribunal du travail d’Anvers)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (tribunal du travail d’Anvers)"->"surseoir à statuer"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (tribunal du travail d’Anvers)"->"la question préjudicielle suivante";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"la Cour";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"Le droit de l’Union et, plus précisément, l’article 24 de la directive [2006/54], doivent-ils être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une législation nationale en vertu de laquelle la protection contre les rétorsions prévue en faveur des personnes agissant comme témoin est exclusivement accordée aux personnes qui, dans le cadre de l’instruction d’une plainte, font connaître à la personne auprès de qui la plainte a été introduite, dans un document daté et signé, les faits qu’elles ont elles-mêmes vus ou entendus et qui sont en relation avec la situation qui fait l’objet de la plainte, ainsi qu’aux personnes qui interviennent en tant que témoins en justice ?"[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

U tim je okolnostima arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Radni sud u Antwerpenu) odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:
„Treba li pravo Unije, a osobito članak 24. Direktive [2006/54] tumačiti na način da mu se protivi nacionalno zakonodavstvo na temelju kojeg se zaštita od viktimizacije koja je predviđena u korist osoba koje sudjeluju u svojstvu svjedoka primjenjuje samo na osobe koje u okviru ispitivanja pritužbe datiranim i potpisanim dokumentom priopće osobi kojoj se podnosi pritužba činjenice koje su one osobno vidjele ili čule i u vezi su sa situacijom koja je predmet pritužbe te na osobe koje kao svjedoci sudjeluju u sudskom postupku?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Sudu"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Radni sud u Antwerpenu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Radni sud u Antwerpenu)"->"prekinuti postupak"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Radni sud u Antwerpenu)"->"sljedeće prethodno pitanje";
  "sljedeće prethodno pitanje"->"Sudu";
  "sljedeće prethodno pitanje"->"Treba li pravo Unije, a osobito članak 24. Direktive [2006/54] tumačiti na način da mu se protivi nacionalno zakonodavstvo na temelju kojeg se zaštita od viktimizacije koja je predviđena u korist osoba koje sudjeluju u svojstvu svjedoka primjenjuje samo na osobe koje u okviru ispitivanja pritužbe datiranim i potpisanim dokumentom priopće osobi kojoj se podnosi pritužba činjenice koje su one osobno vidjele ili čule i u vezi su sa situacijom koja je predmet pritužbe te na osobe koje kao svjedoci sudjeluju u sudskom postupku?"[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

In tali circostanze l’Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunale del lavoro di Anversa) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:
«Se il diritto dell’Unione, e segnatamente l’articolo 24 della direttiva [2006/54], debba essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta ad una normativa nazionale che offre tutela contro le ritorsioni nei confronti di persone che intervengono come testimoni solo alla persona che, nel contesto dell’esame di un reclamo, notifichi alla persona presso la quale il reclamo è presentato, in un documento sottoscritto e datato, i fatti da essa visti o sentiti relativi alla situazione in oggetto del reclamo, o che interviene in giudizio come testimone».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tribunale del lavoro di Anversa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunale del lavoro di Antversa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunale del lavoro di Antversa)"->"sospendere il procedimento"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunale del lavoro di Antversa)"->"la seguente questione pregiudiziale";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"Tribunale del lavoro di Anversa";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"Se il diritto dell’Unione, e segnatamente l’articolo 24 della direttiva [2006/54], debba essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta ad una normativa nazionale che offre tutela contro le ritorsioni nei confronti di persone che intervengono come testimoni solo alla persona che, nel contesto dell’esame di un reclamo, notifichi alla persona presso la quale il reclamo è presentato, in un documento sottoscritto e datato, i fatti da essa visti o sentiti relativi alla situazione in oggetto del reclamo, o che interviene in giudizio come testimone"[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

Šādos apstākļos arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpenes Darba lietu tiesa) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai Savienības tiesības un it īpaši [Direktīvas 2006/54] 24. pants ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka tas nepieļauj valsts tiesisko regulējumu, ar ko personu, kuras sniedz liecību, aizsardzība pret pakļaušanu netaisnībai tiek nodrošināta tikai personai, kas sūdzības izmeklēšanas procesā parakstītā un datētā dokumentā dara zināmus personai, kurai tiek iesniegta sūdzība, faktus, ko tā pati ir redzējusi vai dzirdējusi un kas attiecas uz situāciju, kura ir sūdzības priekšmets, vai personai, kas sniedz liecību tiesā?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpenes Darba lietu tiesa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpenes Darba lietu tiesa)"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpenes Darba lietu tiesa)"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai Savienības tiesības un it īpaši [Direktīvas 2006/54] 24. pants ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka tas nepieļauj valsts tiesisko regulējumu, ar ko personu, kuras sniedz liecību, aizsardzība pret pakļaušanu netaisnībai tiek nodrošināta tikai personai, kas sūdzības izmeklēšanas procesā parakstītā un datētā dokumentā dara zināmus personai, kurai tiek iesniegta sūdzība, faktus, ko tā pati ir redzējusi vai dzirdējusi un kas attiecas uz situāciju, kura ir sūdzības priekšmets, vai personai, kas sniedz liecību tiesā?"[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

Šiomis aplinkybėmis Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpeno darbo teismas) nutarė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar Sąjungos teisė, konkrečiai [Direktyvos 2006/54] 24 straipsnis, turi būti aiškinami taip, kad draudžiama tokia nacionalinės teisės norma, pagal kurią liudytojų apsauga nuo atsakomųjų priemonių suteikiama tik tiems asmenims, kurie tiriant skundą jį gavusiam subjektui praneša apie faktines aplinkybes, kurias patys matė arba girdėjo ir kurios yra susijusios su skunde nurodyta situacija, pateikdami pasirašytą dokumentą su nurodyta data ir tiems asmenims, kurie kaip liudytojai duoda parodymus teisme?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpeno darbo teismas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpeno darbo teismas)"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Antverpeno darbo teismas)"->"prejudicinį klausimą";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Ar Sąjungos teisė, konkrečiai [Direktyvos 2006/54] 24 straipsnis, turi būti aiškinami taip, kad draudžiama tokia nacionalinės teisės norma, pagal kurią liudytojų apsauga nuo atsakomųjų priemonių suteikiama tik tiems asmenims, kurie tiriant skundą jį gavusiam subjektui praneša apie faktines aplinkybes, kurias patys matė arba girdėjo ir kurios yra susijusios su skunde nurodyta situacija, pateikdami pasirašytą dokumentą su nurodyta data ir tiems asmenims, kurie kaip liudytojai duoda parodymus teisme?"[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

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, l-arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (il-Qorti tax-Xogħol ta’ Antwerpen, il-Belġju) iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemha u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li ġejja:
“Id-dritt tal-Unjoni u b’mod iktar partikolari l-Artikolu 24 tad-Direttiva [2006/54], għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li huwa jipprekludi leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li toffri protezzjoni kontra ritaljazzjonijiet minn persuni li jintervjenu bħala xhieda, biss għall-persuna li, fil-kuntest ta’ investigazzjoni ta’ lment tikkomunika, f’dokument iffirmat u b’data, fatti li hija nnifisha rat jew semgħet, u li huma marbuta mas-sitwazzjoni li hija s-suġġett tal-ilment, lill-persuna li quddiemha tressaq l-ilment jew li tintervjeni bħala xhud fil-proċeduri legali?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (il-Qorti tax-Xogħol ta’ Antwerpen, il-Belġju)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (il-Qorti tax-Xogħol ta’ Antwerpen, il-Belġju)"->"tissospendi l-proċeduri"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (il-Qorti tax-Xogħol ta’ Antwerpen, il-Belġju)"->"d-domanda preliminari li ġejja";
  "d-domanda preliminari li ġejja"->"l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "d-domanda preliminari li ġejja"->"Id-dritt tal-Unjoni u b’mod iktar partikolari l-Artikolu 24 tad-Direttiva [2006/54], għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li huwa jipprekludi leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li toffri protezzjoni kontra ritaljazzjonijiet minn persuni li jintervjenu bħala xhieda, biss għall-persuna li, fil-kuntest ta’ investigazzjoni ta’ lment tikkomunika, f’dokument iffirmat u b’data, fatti li hija nnifisha rat jew semgħet, u li huma marbuta mas-sitwazzjoni li hija s-suġġett tal-ilment, lill-persuna li quddiemha tressaq l-ilment jew li tintervjeni bħala xhud fil-proċeduri legali?"[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

In die omstandigheden heeft de arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof de volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd:
„Moet het Unierecht en meer bepaald artikel 24 van [...] richtlijn [2006/54] in die zin worden uitgelegd dat zij zich verzet tegen een nationale regeling die de bescherming tegen represailles van personen die optreden als getuigen, uitsluitend verleent aan [personen] die, in het kader van het onderzoek van een klacht, in een ondertekend en gedateerd document de feiten die ze zelf hebben gezien of gehoord en die betrekking hebben op de toestand die het voorwerp is van de klacht, ter kennis brengen van de persoon bij wie de klacht wordt ingediend of doordat zij optreden als een getuige in rechte?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Hof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"->"de behandeling van de zaak geschorst"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"->"de volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd";
  "de volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd"->"Hof";
  "de volgende prejudiciële vraag voorgelegd"->"Moet het Unierecht en meer bepaald artikel 24 van [...] richtlijn [2006/54] in die zin worden uitgelegd dat zij zich verzet tegen een nationale regeling die de bescherming tegen represailles van personen die optreden als getuigen, uitsluitend verleent aan [personen] die, in het kader van het onderzoek van een klacht, in een ondertekend en gedateerd document de feiten die ze zelf hebben gezien of gehoord en die betrekking hebben op de toestand die het voorwerp is van de klacht, ter kennis brengen van de persoon bij wie de klacht wordt ingediend of doordat zij optreden als een getuige in rechte?"[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

W tych okolicznościach arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (sąd pracy w Antwerpii) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:
„Czy prawo Unii, a w szczególności art. 24 dyrektywy [2006/54] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że stoi ono na przeszkodzie uregulowaniu krajowemu, na mocy którego ochronę osób działających w charakterze świadków przed represjami zapewnia się wyłącznie osobom, które – w ramach badania danej skargi – podają do wiadomości osoby, u której skarga została złożona, w podpisanym i opatrzonym datą dokumencie widziane lub zasłyszane osobiście okoliczności faktyczne mające związek z sytuacją będącą przedmiotem skargi, lub osobom, które występują w charakterze świadków w postępowaniu sądowym?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Trybunału"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (sąd pracy w Antwerpii)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (sąd pracy w Antwerpii)"->"zawiesić postępowanie"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (sąd pracy w Antwerpii)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Czy prawo Unii, a w szczególności art. 24 dyrektywy [2006/54] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że stoi ono na przeszkodzie uregulowaniu krajowemu, na mocy którego ochronę osób działających w charakterze świadków przed represjami zapewnia się wyłącznie osobom, które – w ramach badania danej skargi – podają do wiadomości osoby, u której skarga została złożona, w podpisanym i opatrzonym datą dokumencie widziane lub zasłyszane osobiście okoliczności faktyczne mające związek z sytuacją będącą przedmiotem skargi, lub osobom, które występują w charakterze świadków w postępowaniu sądowym?"[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: Romanian

În aceste condiții, arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunalul pentru Litigii de Muncă din Antwerpen) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:
„Dreptul Uniunii și, mai precis, articolul 24 din Directiva [2006/54] trebuie interpretat în sensul că se opune unei legislații naționale în temeiul căreia protecția împotriva victimizării prevăzută în favoarea persoanelor care acționează în calitate de martor este acordată exclusiv persoanelor care, în cadrul investigării unei plângeri, aduc la cunoștință persoanei la care este depusă plângerea, într‑un document datat și semnat, faptele pe care ele însele le‑au văzut sau auzit, legate de situația care face obiectul plângerii, precum și persoanelor care intervin în calitate de martori în fața instanței judecătorești?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunalul pentru Litigii de Muncă din Antwerpen)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunalul pentru Litigii de Muncă din Antwerpen)"->"să suspende judecarea cauzei"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Tribunalul pentru Litigii de Muncă din Antwerpen)"->"următoarea întrebare preliminară";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Curții";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Dreptul Uniunii și, mai precis, articolul 24 din Directiva [2006/54] trebuie interpretat în sensul că se opune unei legislații naționale în temeiul căreia protecția împotriva victimizării prevăzută în favoarea persoanelor care acționează în calitate de martor este acordată exclusiv persoanelor care, în cadrul investigării unei plângeri, aduc la cunoștință persoanei la care este depusă plângerea, într‑un document datat și semnat, faptele pe care ele însele le‑au văzut sau auzit, legate de situația care face obiectul plângerii, precum și persoanelor care intervin în calitate de martori în fața instanței judecătorești?"[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: Slovak

Za týchto okolností Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Pracovný súd, Antverpy) rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru túto prejudiciálnu otázku:
„Má sa právo Únie a osobitne článok 24 smernice [2006/54] vykladať v tom zmysle, že mu odporuje vnútroštátna právna úprava, ktorá zaručuje ochranu osôb vystupujúcich v postavení svedkov pred represáliami len tej osobe, ktorá v rámci preskúmavania sťažnosti v podpísanom a datovanom dokumente oboznámi so skutkovým stavom, ktorý sama videla alebo počula a ktorý sa týka situácie, ktorá je predmetom sťažnosti, osobu, u ktorej sa sťažnosť podáva, alebo aj osobe, ktorá vystupuje na súde ako svedok?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Súdny dvor"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Pracovný súd, Antverpy)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Pracovný súd, Antverpy)"->"prerušiť konanie"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Pracovný súd, Antverpy)"->"prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdny dvor";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Má sa právo Únie a osobitne článok 24 smernice [2006/54] vykladať v tom zmysle, že mu odporuje vnútroštátna právna úprava, ktorá zaručuje ochranu osôb vystupujúcich v postavení svedkov pred represáliami len tej osobe, ktorá v rámci preskúmavania sťažnosti v podpísanom a datovanom dokumente oboznámi so skutkovým stavom, ktorý sama videla alebo počula a ktorý sa týka situácie, ktorá je predmetom sťažnosti, osobu, u ktorej sa sťažnosť podáva, alebo aj osobe, ktorá vystupuje na súde ako svedok?"[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: Slovenian

V teh okoliščinah je arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (delovno sodišče v Antwerpnu) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:
„Ali je treba pravo Unije in natančneje člen 24 Direktive [2006/54] razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, s katero je varstvo pred viktimizacijo oseb, ki nastopijo kot priče, zagotovljeno zgolj osebam, ki v okviru preučitve pritožbe tistemu, pri komer je pritožba vložena, v datiranem in podpisanem dokumentu razkrijejo to, kar so same videle ali slišale in kar je povezano s položajem, ki je predmet pritožbe, ali ki nastopijo kot priče pred sodiščem?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (delovno sodišče v Antwerpnu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (delovno sodišče v Antwerpnu)"->"prekinilo odločanje"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (delovno sodišče v Antwerpnu)"->"v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje";
  "v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje"->"Sodišču";
  "v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje"->"Ali je treba pravo Unije in natančneje člen 24 Direktive [2006/54] razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, s katero je varstvo pred viktimizacijo oseb, ki nastopijo kot priče, zagotovljeno zgolj osebam, ki v okviru preučitve pritožbe tistemu, pri komer je pritožba vložena, v datiranem in podpisanem dokumentu razkrijejo to, kar so same videle ali slišale in kar je povezano s položajem, ki je predmet pritožbe, ali ki nastopijo kot priče pred sodiščem?"[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: Finnish

Näin ollen arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen on päättänyt lykätä asian käsittelyä ja esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen:
”Onko unionin oikeutta ja erityisesti neuvoston direktiivin [2006/54] 24 artiklaa tulkittava siten, että se on esteenä kansalliselle lainsäädännölle, jossa todistajina esiintyvien henkilöiden suojaa vastatoimenpiteiltä saa ainoastaan henkilö, joka valituksen tutkinnan yhteydessä ilmoittaa taholle, jolle valitus jätetään, allekirjoitetussa ja päivätyssä asiakirjassa tosiseikat, jotka hän on itse nähnyt tai kuullut ja jotka liittyvät tilanteeseen, joka on valituksen kohteena, tai joka esiintyy oikeudenkäynnissä todistajana?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "unionin tuomioistuimelle"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"->"lykätä asian käsittelyä"[dir=none];
  "The arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen)"->"seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen";
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"unionin tuomioistuimelle";
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"Onko unionin oikeutta ja erityisesti neuvoston direktiivin [2006/54] 24 artiklaa tulkittava siten, että se on esteenä kansalliselle lainsäädännölle, jossa todistajina esiintyvien henkilöiden suojaa vastatoimenpiteiltä saa ainoastaan henkilö, joka valituksen tutkinnan yhteydessä ilmoittaa taholle, jolle valitus jätetään, allekirjoitetussa ja päivätyssä asiakirjassa tosiseikat, jotka hän on itse nähnyt tai kuullut ja jotka liittyvät tilanteeseen, joka on valituksen kohteena, tai joka esiintyy oikeudenkäynnissä todistajana?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ — Requirement of physical presence — Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother — Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: English

The applicant in the main proceedings, and mother of the child, (‘the mother’) is a Bangladeshi national who, in 2013, entered into a marriage in Bangladesh with the defendant in the main proceedings, a British national who is the father of the child (‘the father’).
In June or July 2016, the mother entered the United Kingdom to live there with the father. She was granted a spousal visa by the United Kingdom Home Office valid from 1 July 2016 to 1 April 2019.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The father"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Child"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The applicant"->""[dir=none style=bold];
   ""->"The father"[dir=none style=bold];
   ""->"Child"[dir=none];
   "The applicant"->"Bangladeshi national"[dir=none];
   "The father"->"British national"[dir=none];
   "The applicant"->"Entered the United Kingdom to live there with the father in June or July 2016"[dir=none];
   "The applicant"->"Spousal visa by the United Kingdom Home Office valid from 01/07/2016 to 01/04/2019"[dir=none];

    
}