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: Bulgarian

След това г‑жа Hakelbracht се свързва с WTG Retail относно нейното неназначаване, като уведомява WTG Retail, че възнамерява да подаде жалба срещу това предприятие до Института. След като впоследствие WTG Retail не променя позицията си, г‑жа Hakelbracht подава жалба и на 26 септември 2015 г. уведомява за нея същото предприятие.
На 5 октомври 2015 г. г‑жа Vandenbon провежда разговор с ръководителя на WTG Retail относно неназначаването на г‑жа Hakelbracht, по време на който е упрекната, че е причина за подадената от г‑жа Hakelbracht жалба.
На 12 ноември 2015 г. Институтът уведомява WTG Retail, че е получил жалбата на г‑жа Hakelbracht. С имейл, изпратен на Института на 11 декември 2015 г., това предприятие официално отрича, че е отказало да назначи г‑жа Hakelbracht поради бременността ѝ.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "г‑жа Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Институтът"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "г‑жа Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="уведомява WTG Retail 26/09/2015"];
  "г‑жа Hakelbracht"->"Институтът"[label="подаде жалба срещу това предприятие"];
  "Институтът"->"WTG Retail"[label="това предприятие официално отрича, че е отказало да назначи г‑жа Hakelbracht поради бременността ѝ.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"имейл 11/12/2015";
  "имейл 11/12/2015"->"Институтът";
  "имейл 11/12/2015"->"официално отрича, че е отказало да назначи г‑жа Hakelbracht поради бременността ѝ.."[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

Acto seguido, la Sra. Hakelbracht se puso en contacto con WTG Retail para abordar su no contratación, indicándole que pretendía presentar una reclamación contra esa empresa ante el Instituto. Como, a continuación, WTG Retail no modificó su postura, la Sra. Hakelbracht presentó una reclamación, e informó de ello a la empresa el 26 de septiembre de 2015.
El 5 de octubre de 2015, la Sra. Vandenbon tuvo una entrevista con la responsable de WTG Retail relativa a la no contratación de la Sra. Hakelbracht, durante la cual se le reprochó ser la causa de la reclamación presentada por esta.
El 12 de noviembre de 2015, el Instituto informó a WTG Retail de que había recibido reclamación de la Sra. Hakelbracht. Mediante correo electrónico enviado al Instituto el 11 de diciembre de 2015, esa empresa negó formalmente haber dejado de contratar a la Sra. Hakelbracht debido a su embarazo.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sra. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Instituto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Sra. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informó de ello a la empresa 26/09/2015"];
  "Sra. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Instituto"[label="presentar una reclamación contra esa empresa"];
  "Instituto"->"WTG Retail"[label="Mediante correo electrónico enviado al Instituto el 11 de diciembre de 2015, esa empresa negó formalmente haber dejado de contratar a la Sra. Hakelbracht debido a su embarazo.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Mediante correo electrónico enviado al Instituto el 11 de diciembre de 2015 11/12/2015";
  "Mediante correo electrónico enviado al Instituto el 11 de diciembre de 2015 11/12/2015"->"Instituto";
  "Mediante correo electrónico enviado al Instituto el 11 de diciembre de 2015 11/12/2015"->"esa empresa negó formalmente haber dejado de contratar a la Sra. Hakelbracht debido a su embarazo.."[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

Jamina Hakelbracht poté kontaktovala společnost WTG Retail ve věci svého nepřijetí do zaměstnání a uvedla, že proti ní zamýšlí podat stížnost u Institutu. Vzhledem k tomu, že WTG Retail své stanovisko nezměnila, podala J. Hakelbracht stížnost, o které tuto společnost informovala dne 26. září 2015.
Dne 5. října 2015 se uskutečnil rozhovor mezi T. Vandenbon a odpovědnou osobou ve společnosti WTG Retail, který se týkal nepřijetí J. Hakelbracht do zaměstnání, při němž jí bylo vytknuto, že byla příčinou podání stížnosti ze strany posledně uvedené.
Dne 12. listopadu 2015 informoval Institut společnost WTG Retail, že obdržel stížnost J. Hakelbracht. Elektronickou poštou zaslanou Institutu dne 11. prosince 2015 tato společnost formálně zpochybnila, že odmítla zaměstnat J. Hakelbracht z důvodu jejího těhotenství.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Institut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informovala tuto společnost 26/09/2015"];
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Institut"[label="podání stížnosti u Institutu"];
  "Institut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Elektronickou poštou zaslanou Institutu dne 11. prosince 2015 tato společnost formálně zpochybnila, že odmítla zaměstnat J. Hakelbracht z důvodu jejího těhotenství.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Elektronickou poštou zaslanou Institutu dne 11. prosince 2015 11/12/2015";
  "Elektronickou poštou zaslanou Institutu dne 11. prosince 2015 11/12/2015"->"Institut";
  "Elektronickou poštou zaslanou Institutu dne 11. prosince 2015 11/12/2015"->"Tato společnost formálně zpochybnila, že odmítla zaměstnat J. Hakelbracht z důvodu jejího 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

Herefter kontaktede Jamina Hakelbracht WTG Retail vedrørende det forhold, at hun ikke var blevet ansat, og hun gjorde opmærksom på, at hun ville indgive en klage til instituttet over virksomheden. Da WTG Retail ikke ændrede holdning herefter, indgav Jamina Hakelbracht en klage og informerede virksomheden herom den 26. september 2015.
Den 5. oktober 2015 havde Tine Vandenbon et møde med den ansvarlige fra WTG Retail vedrørende det forhold, at Jamina Hakelbracht ikke var blevet ansat, hvorunder Tine Vandenbon blev kritiseret for at være skyld i, at Jamina Hakelbracht havde indgivet klagen.
Den 12. november 2015 informerede instituttet WTG Retail om, at det havde modtaget Jamina Hakelbrachts klage. Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "instituttet"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informerede virksomheden 26/09/2015"];
  "Jamina Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"instituttet"[label="indgive en klage til instituttet over virksomheden"];
  "instituttet"->"WTG Retail"[label="Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet. 11/12/2015";
  "Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet. 11/12/2015"->"instituttet";
  "Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet. 11/12/2015"->"Ved e-mail sendt til instituttet den 11. december 2015 bestred denne virksomhed formelt, at den havde nægtet at ansætte Jamina Hakelbracht på grund af hendes graviditet.."[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

Daraufhin nahm Frau Hakelbracht wegen ihrer Nichteinstellung Kontakt zu WTG Retail auf und wies auf ihre Absicht hin, gegen dieses Unternehmen Beschwerde beim Institut einzureichen. Da WTG Retail ihre Einstellung in der Folge nicht änderte, reichte Frau Hakelbracht eine Beschwerde ein und informierte das Unternehmen darüber am 26. September 2015.
Am 5. Oktober 2015 fand zwischen Frau Vandenbon und der Verantwortlichen von WTG Retail ein Gespräch über die Nichteinstellung von Frau Hakelbracht statt, in dem Frau Vandenbon vorgehalten wurde, der Grund für die von Frau Hakelbracht eingereichte Beschwerde zu sein. 
Am 12. November 2015 teilte das Institut WTG Retail mit, dass es eine Beschwerde von Frau Hakelbracht erhalten habe. Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 bestritt WTG Retail nachdrücklich, die Einstellung von Frau Hakelbracht wegen deren Schwangerschaft abgelehnt zu haben.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Frau Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Institut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Frau Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informierte das Unternehmen 26/09/2015"];
  "Frau Hakelbracht"->"Institut"[label="gegen dieses Unternehmen Beschwerde beim Institut einzureichen."];
  "Institut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 bestritt WTG Retail nachdrücklich, die Einstellung von Frau Hakelbracht wegen deren Schwangerschaft abgelehnt zu haben.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 11/12/2015";
  "Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 11/12/2015"->"Institut";
  "Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 11/12/2015"->"Mit E‑Mail vom 11. Dezember 2015 bestritt WTG Retail nachdrücklich, die Einstellung von Frau Hakelbracht wegen deren Schwangerschaft abgelehnt zu haben.."[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

J. Hakelbracht võttis seepeale WTG Retailiga tema tööle võtmata jätmise teemal ühendust, teavitades WTG Retaili, et kavatseb esitada selle ettevõtja vastu Instituudile kaebuse. Kuna WTG Retail seejärel oma seisukohta ei muutnud, esitas J. Hakelbracht kaebuse ja teavitas nimetatud ettevõtjat sellest 26. septembril 2015.
5. oktoobril 2015 oli T. Vandenbonil vestlus WTG Retaili vastutava töötajaga J. Hakelbrachti tööle võtmata jätmise üle, mille käigus T. Vandenbonile heideti ette, et tema põhjustas mainitud kaebuse esitamise.
Instituut teatas 12. novembril 2015 WTG Retailile, et on saanud J. Hakelbrachtilt kaebuse. Nimetatud ettevõtja kinnitas Instituudile 11. detsembril 2015 saadetud elektronkirjas ametlikult, et ei ole keeldunud J. Hakelbrachti tema raseduse tõttu tööle võtmast.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Instituut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="teavitades WTG Retaili 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Instituut"[label="selle ettevõtja vastu Instituudile kaebuse esitamine"];
  "Instituut"->"WTG Retail"[label="et ei ole keeldunud J. Hakelbrachti tema raseduse tõttu tööle võtmast.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"elektronkirjas 11/12/2015";
  "elektronkirjas 11/12/2015"->"Instituut";
  "elektronkirjas 11/12/2015"->"Ei ole keeldunud J. Hakelbrachti tema raseduse tõttu tööle võtmast.."[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 J. Hakelbracht επικοινώνησε, στη συνέχεια, με τη WTG Retail για το θέμα της μη πρόσληψής της, δηλώνοντάς της ότι σκόπευε να υποβάλει καταγγελία κατά της επιχείρησης αυτής ενώπιον του Ινστιτούτου. Δεδομένου ότι η WTG Retail δεν μετέβαλε, κατόπιν τούτου, τη θέση της, η J. Hakelbracht υπέβαλε καταγγελία και ενημέρωσε σχετικώς την εν λόγω επιχείρηση στις 26 Σεπτεμβρίου 2015.
Στις 5 Οκτωβρίου 2015, διεξήχθη σύσκεψη μεταξύ της Τ. Vandenbon και της υπεύθυνης της WTG Retail αφορώσα τη μη πρόσληψη της J. Hakelbracht, κατά τη διάρκεια της οποίας προσήφθη στην Τ. Vandenbon ότι εξαιτίας της υπέβαλε καταγγελία η J. Hakelbracht.
Στις 12 Νοεμβρίου 2015, το Ινστιτούτο ενημέρωσε τη WTG Retail ότι παρέλαβε την καταγγελία της J. Hakelbracht. Με μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου που απέστειλε στο Ινστιτούτο στις 11 Δεκεμβρίου 2015, η επιχείρηση αυτή αμφισβήτησε επισήμως ότι αρνήθηκε να προσλάβει την J. Hakelbracht λόγω της εγκυμοσύνης της.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Ινστιτούτου"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="ενημέρωσε την επιχείρηση 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Ινστιτούτου"[label="υποβάλει καταγγελία κατά της επιχείρησης"];
  "Ινστιτούτου"->"WTG Retail"[label="Με μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου που απέστειλε στο Ινστιτούτο στις 11 Δεκεμβρίου 2015, η επιχείρηση αυτή αμφισβήτησε επισήμως ότι αρνήθηκε να προσλάβει την J. Hakelbracht λόγω της εγκυμοσύνης της.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου 11/12/2015";
  "μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου 11/12/2015"->"Ινστιτούτου";
  "μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου 11/12/2015"->"αμφισβήτησε επισήμως ότι αρνήθηκε να προσλάβει την J. Hakelbracht λόγω της εγκυμοσύνης της."[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 Hakelbracht a ensuite contacté WTG Retail au sujet de son non-engagement, lui indiquant qu’elle envisageait de déposer plainte contre cette entreprise auprès de l’Institut. WTG Retail n’ayant pas, par la suite, modifié sa position, Mme Hakelbracht a déposé plainte, et en a informé cette entreprise le 26 septembre 2015.
Le 5 octobre 2015, Mme Vandenbon a eu un entretien avec la responsable de WTG Retail relatif au non-engagement de Mme Hakelbracht, lors duquel elle s’est vu reprocher être la cause de la plainte déposée par cette dernière.
Le 12 novembre 2015, l’Institut a informé WTG Retail de la réception de la plainte de Mme Hakelbracht. Par courrier électronique envoyé à l’Institut le 11 décembre 2015, cette entreprise a contesté formellement avoir refusé d’engager Mme Hakelbracht en raison de sa grossesse.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Mme Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Institut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Mme Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="a informé cette entreprise 26/09/2015"];
  "Mme Hakelbracht"->"Institut"[label="déposer plainte contre cette entreprise"];
  "Institut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Par courrier électronique envoyé à l’Institut le 11 décembre 2015, cette entreprise a contesté formellement avoir refusé d’engager Mme Hakelbracht en raison de sa grossesse.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Par courrier électronique 11/12/2015";
  "Par courrier électronique 11/12/2015"->"Institut";
  "Par courrier électronique 11/12/2015"->"cette entreprise a contesté formellement avoir refusé d’engager Mme Hakelbracht en raison de sa grossesse.."[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

J. Hakelbracht se zatim u vezi sa svojim nezapošljavanjem obratila društvu WTG Retail, navodeći da protiv njega namjerava podnijeti pritužbu Institutu. Budući da ono nije promijenilo svoje stajalište, J. Hakelbracht podnijela je pritužbu, o čemu je to poduzeće obavijestila 26. rujna 2015.
Dana 5. listopada 2015. odgovorna osoba društva WTG Retail održala je razgovor s T. Vandenbon u vezi s okolnošću nezapošljavanja J. Hakelbracht, tijekom kojeg je T. Vandenbon prigovoreno da je ona uzrokovala pritužbu koju je podnijela J. Hakelbracht.
Dana 12. studenoga 2015. Institut je obavijestio društvo WTG Retail o primitku pritužbe J. Hakelbracht. Elektroničkom poštom upućenom 11. prosinca 2015. Institutu, to je poduzeće formalno osporilo navod o nezapošljavanju J. Hakelbracht zbog njezine trudnoće.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Institut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="obavijestio društvo 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Institut"[label="podnijeti pritužbu protiv društva"];
  "Institut"->"WTG Retail"[label="To je poduzeće formalno osporilo navod o nezapošljavanju J. Hakelbracht zbog njezine trudnoće.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Elektroničkom poštom 11/12/2015";
  "Elektroničkom poštom 11/12/2015"->"Institut";
  "Elektroničkom poštom 11/12/2015"->"Formalno osporilo navod o nezapošljavanju J. Hakelbracht zbog njezine trudnoće.."[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 seguito, la sig.ra Hakelbracht ha contattato la WTG Retail in merito alla sua mancata assunzione, comunicandole che intendeva presentare reclamo contro tale impresa dinanzi all’Istituto. Poiché la WTG Retail non ha successivamente modificato la sua posizione, la sig.ra Hakelbracht ha presentato reclamo, informandone tale impresa il 26 settembre 2015.
Il 5 ottobre 2015, la sig.ra Vandenbon ha avuto un colloquio con la responsabile della WTG Retail, in merito alla mancata assunzione della sig.ra Hakelbracht, in occasione del quale si è vista contestare di essere la causa del reclamo presentato da quest’ultima.
Il 12 novembre 2015, l’Istituto ha comunicato alla WTG Retail di aver ricevuto il reclamo della sig.ra Hakelbracht. Con messaggio di posta elettronica inviato all’Istituto l’11 dicembre 2015, tale impresa ha contestato formalmente di aver rifiutato di assumere la sig.ra Hakelbracht a causa della sua gravidanza.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sig.ra Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Istituto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "sig.ra Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informandone tale impresa il 26 settembre 2015. 26/09/2015"];
  "sig.ra Hakelbracht"->"Istituto"[label="presentare reclamo contro tale impresa"];
  "Istituto"->"WTG Retail"[label="Con messaggio di posta elettronica inviato all’Istituto l’11 dicembre 2015, tale impresa ha contestato formalmente di aver rifiutato di assumere la sig.ra Hakelbracht a causa della sua gravidanza.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"messaggio di posta elettronica 11/12/2015";
  "messaggio di posta elettronica 11/12/2015"->"Istituto";
  "messaggio di posta elettronica 11/12/2015"->"Ha contestato formalmente di aver rifiutato di assumere la sig.ra Hakelbracht a causa della sua gravidanza.."[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

J. Hakelbracht pēc tam sazinājās ar WTG Retail saistībā ar viņas nepieņemšanu darbā, paziņojot šim uzņēmumam, ka viņa grasās iesniegt sūdzību par šo uzņēmumu institūtā. Tā kā WTG Retail savu nostāju nemainīja, J. Hakelbracht iesniedza sūdzību, par to informējot šo uzņēmumu 2015. gada 26. septembrī.
2015. gada 5. oktobrīT. Vandenbon bija intervija ar WTG Retail pārstāvi saistībā ar J. Hakelbracht nepieņemšanu darbā, kuras laikā viņai tika pārmests, ka viņas dēļ J. Hakelbracht esot iesniegusi sūdzību.
2015. gada 12. novembrī institūts informēja WTG Retail par saņemto J. Hakelbracht sūdzību. Ar institūtam 2015. gada 11. decembrī nosūtīto e‑pasta vēstuli šis uzņēmums oficiāli apstrīdēja, ka tas būtu atteicies pieņemt darbā J. Hakelbracht grūtniecības dēļ.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "institūts"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informējot šo uzņēmumu 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"institūts"[label="iesniegt sūdzību par šo uzņēmumu"];
  "institūts"->"WTG Retail"[label="šis uzņēmums oficiāli apstrīdēja, ka tas būtu atteicies pieņemt darbā J. Hakelbracht grūtniecības dēļ.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"e‑pasta vēstuli 11/12/2015";
  "e‑pasta vēstuli 11/12/2015"->"institūts";
  "e‑pasta vēstuli 11/12/2015"->"oficiāli apstrīdēja, ka tas būtu atteicies pieņemt darbā J. Hakelbracht grūtniecības dēļ.."[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

Tada J. Hakelbracht susisiekė su WTG Retail dėl atsisakymo ją įdarbinti ir nurodė, kad ketina dėl šios įmonės pateikti skundą Institutui. Kadangi WTG Retail nepakeitė savo pozicijos, J. Hakelbracht padavė skundą ir 2015 m. rugsėjo 26 d. apie tai pranešė šiai įmonei.
2015 m. spalio 5 d. A. Vandenbon turėjo pokalbį su WTG Retail vadove dėl atsisakymo įdarbinti J. Hakelbracht, per kurį jai buvo priekaištauta, kad būtent dėl jos J. Hakelbracht pateikė skundą.
2015 m. lapkričio 12 d. Institutas pranešė WTG Retail, kad gavo J. Hakelbracht skundą. 2015 m. gruodžio 11 d. elektroniniu laišku, atsiųstu Institutui, ši įmonė nurodė oficialiai nesutinkanti su teiginiu, kad atsisakė įdarbinti J. Hakelbracht dėl jos nėštumo.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Institutas"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="apie tai pranešė šiai įmonei 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Institutas"[label="pateikti skundą Institutui."];
  "Institutas"->"WTG Retail"[label="Oficialiai nesutinkanti su teiginiu, kad atsisakė įdarbinti J. Hakelbracht dėl jos nėštumo.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"elektroniniu laišku 11/12/2015";
  "elektroniniu laišku 11/12/2015"->"Institutas";
  "elektroniniu laišku 11/12/2015"->"oficialiai nesutinkanti su teiginiu, kad atsisakė įdarbinti J. Hakelbracht dėl jos nėštumo.."[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

J. Hakelbracht ezt követően kapcsolatba lépett a WTG Retaillel alkalmazásának megtagadása miatt, és jelezte, hogy e vállalkozás ellen panasz benyújtását helyezi kilátásba az Intézetnél. Mivel a WTG Retail ezt követően nem módosította álláspontját, J. Hakelbracht panaszt nyújtott be, és arról e vállalkozást 2015. szeptember 26‑án tájékoztatta.
2015. október 5‑én T. Vandenbon és a WTG Retail felelőse között megbeszélés zajlott J. Hakelbracht alkalmazásának megtagadásával kapcsolatban, amelynek során azt rótták fel T. Vandenbonnak, hogy a J. Hakelbracht által benyújtott panasznak ő az oka.
2015. november 12‑én az Intézet J. Hakelbracht panaszának átvételéről tájékoztatta a WTG Retailt. Az Intézetnek 2015. december 11‑én küldött elektronikus levélben ez a vállalkozás hivatalosan vitatta, hogy J. Hakelbracht alkalmazását a terhessége miatt tagadta meg.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Intézet"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="tájékoztatta a WTG Retailt 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Intézet"[label="vállalkozás ellen panasz benyújtását"];
  "Intézet"->"WTG Retail"[label="hivatalosan vitatta, hogy J. Hakelbracht alkalmazását a terhessége miatt tagadta meg.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"elektronikus levélben 11/12/2015";
  "elektronikus levélben 11/12/2015"->"Intézet";
  "elektronikus levélben 11/12/2015"->"hivatalosan vitatta, hogy J. Hakelbracht alkalmazását a terhessége miatt tagadta meg.."[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

J. Hakelbracht imbagħad ikkuntattjat lil WTG Retail dwar in-nuqqas ta’ reklutaġġ tagħha, u indikatilha li kellha l-ħsieb tressaq ilment kontra din l-impriża mal-Istitut. Peress li sussegwentement WTG Retail ma bidlitx il-pożizzjoni tagħha, J. Hakelbracht ressqet ilment u, fis-26 ta’ Settembru 2015, hija informat lil din l-impriża b’dan l-ilment.
Fil-5 ta’ Ottubru 2015, T. Vandenbon kellha intervista mal-kap ta’ WTG Retail dwar in-nuqqas ta’ reklutaġġ ta’ J. Hakelbracht, li fiha hija ġiet ikkritikata li kienet il-kawża tal-ilment imressaq minn din tal-aħħar.
Fit-12 ta’ Novembru 2015, l-Istitut informa lil WTG Retail li kien irċieva l-ilment ta’ J. Hakelbracht. Permezz ta’ ittra elettronika mibgħuta lill-Istitut fil-11 ta’ Diċembru 2015, din l-impriża formalment ikkontestat li hija kienet irrifjutat li tirrekluta lil J. Hakelbracht minħabba t-tqala tagħha.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Istitut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="hija informat lil din l-impriża 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Istitut"[label="tressaq ilment kontra din l-impriża"];
  "Istitut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Permezz ta’ ittra elettronika mibgħuta lill-Istitut fil-11 ta’ Diċembru 2015, din l-impriża formalment ikkontestat li hija kienet irrifjutat li tirrekluta lil J. Hakelbracht minħabba t-tqala tagħha.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"ittra elettronika 11/12/2015";
  "ittra elettronika 11/12/2015"->"Istitut";
  "ittra elettronika 11/12/2015"->"din l-impriża formalment ikkontestat li hija kienet irrifjutat li tirrekluta lil J. Hakelbracht minħabba t-tqala tagħha.."[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

Daarop heeft Hakelbracht aangaande haar niet-aanwerving contact opgenomen met WTG Retail en deze onderneming erop gewezen dat zij voornemens was om tegen haar een klacht in te dienen bij het Instituut. Aangezien WTG Retail nadien bij haar standpunt is gebleven, heeft Hakelbracht de klacht ingediend en die onderneming op 26 september 2015 daarvan in kennis gesteld.
Op 5 oktober 2015 had Vandenbon een gesprek met de verantwoordelijke van WTG Retail over de niet-aanwerving van Hakelbracht, waarbij haar werd verweten de oorzaak te zijn van de door Hakelbracht ingediende klacht.
Op 12 november 2015 stelde het Instituut WTG Retail in kennis van de ontvangst van Hakelbrachts klacht. Bij e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut betwistte deze onderneming ten stelligste dat zij had geweigerd om Hakelbracht in dienst te nemen wegens haar zwangerschap.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Instituut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="daarvan in kennis gesteld 26/09/2015"];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Instituut"[label="tegen haar een klacht in te dienen bij het Instituut"];
  "Instituut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Bij e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut betwistte deze onderneming ten stelligste dat zij had geweigerd om Hakelbracht in dienst te nemen wegens haar zwangerschap.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut 11/12/2015";
  "e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut 11/12/2015"->"Instituut";
  "e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut 11/12/2015"->"Bij e‑mail van 11 december 2015 aan het Instituut betwistte deze onderneming ten stelligste dat zij had geweigerd om Hakelbracht in dienst te nemen wegens haar zwangerschap.."[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

Jamina Hakelbracht skontaktowała się następnie z WTG Retail w związku z odmową jej zatrudnienia, informując, że rozważa złożenie skargi na to przedsiębiorstwo do instytutu. WTG Retail nie zmieniło swojego stanowiska, wobec czego J. Hakelbracht złożyła skargę, o czym poinformowała to przedsiębiorstwo w dniu 26 września 2015 r.
W dniu 5 października 2015 r. T. Vandenbon odbyła rozmowę z kierowniczką WTG Retail dotyczącą niezatrudnienia J. Hakelbracht, w trakcie której zarzucono T. Vandenbon, że to jej działania doprowadziły do złożenia przez J. Hakelbracht wspomnianej skargi.
W dniu 12 listopada 2015 r. instytut poinformował WTG Retail o otrzymaniu skargi J. Hakelbracht. Pocztą elektroniczną wysłaną do instytutu w dniu 11 grudnia 2015 r. rzeczone przedsiębiorstwo formalnie zaprzeczyło, że nie chciało zatrudnić J. Hakelbracht właśnie ze względu na jej ciążę.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Pani Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "instytut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Pani Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="poinformowała to przedsiębiorstwo 26/09/2015"];
  "Pani Hakelbracht"->"instytut"[label="złożenie skargi na to przedsiębiorstwo"];
  "instytut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Pocztą elektroniczną wysłaną do instytutu w dniu 11 grudnia 2015 r. rzeczone przedsiębiorstwo formalnie zaprzeczyło, że nie chciało zatrudnić J. Hakelbracht właśnie ze względu na jej ciążę.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Pocztą elektroniczną 11/12/2015";
  "Pocztą elektroniczną 11/12/2015"->"instytut";
  "Pocztą elektroniczną 11/12/2015"->"rzeczone przedsiębiorstwo formalnie zaprzeczyło, że nie chciało zatrudnić J. Hakelbracht właśnie ze względu na jej ciążę.."[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: Portuguese

Seguidamente, J. Hakelbracht contactou a WTG Retail a propósito da sua não contratação, informando‑a de que ponderava apresentar queixa contra essa empresa no Instituto. Como, subsequentemente, a WTG Retail não alterou a sua posição, J. Hakelbracht apresentou queixa, do que informou essa empresa em 26 de setembro de 2015.
Em 5 de outubro de 2015, T. Vandenbon teve uma entrevista com a responsável da WTG Retail, a respeito da não contratação de J. Hakelbracht, em que foi acusada de ser a causa da queixa apresentada por esta última.
Em 12 de novembro de 2015, o Instituto informou a WTG Retail da receção da queixa de J. Hakelbracht. Por correio eletrónico enviado ao Instituto em 11 de dezembro de 2015, essa empresa contestou formalmente que recusara contratar J. Hakelbracht devido à sua gravidez.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Instituto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informou essa empresa 26/09/2015"];
  "J. Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Instituto"[label="apresentar queixa contra essa empresa"];
  "Instituto"->"WTG Retail"[label="Por correio eletrónico enviado ao Instituto em 11 de dezembro de 2015, essa empresa contestou formalmente que recusara contratar J. Hakelbracht devido à sua gravidez.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Por correio eletrónico enviado ao Instituto em 11 de dezembro de 2015 11/12/2015";
  "Por correio eletrónico enviado ao Instituto em 11 de dezembro de 2015 11/12/2015"->"Instituto";
  "Por correio eletrónico enviado ao Instituto em 11 de dezembro de 2015 11/12/2015"->"essa empresa contestou formalmente que recusara contratar J. Hakelbracht devido à sua gravidez.."[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

Doamna Hakelbracht a contactat ulterior WTG Retail în legătură cu neangajarea sa, menționându‑i că intenționa să depună plângere împotriva acestei întreprinderi la institut. Întrucât WTG Retail nu și‑a modificat ulterior poziția, doamna Hakelbracht a depus plângere și a informat întreprinderea respectivă în această privință, la 26 septembrie 2015.
La 5 octombrie 2015, doamna Vandenbon a avut o întrevedere cu responsabilul WTG Retail referitor la neangajarea doamnei Hakelbracht, în cadrul căreia i s‑a reproșat că este cauza plângerii depuse de aceasta din urmă.
La 12 noiembrie 2015, institutul a informat WTG Retail cu privire la primirea plângerii doamnei Hakelbracht. Prin e‑mailul transmis institutului la 11 decembrie 2015, această întreprindere a contestat în mod formal că a refuzat să o angajeze pe doamna Hakelbracht ca urmare a sarcinii sale.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Doamna Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "institutul"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Doamna Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="a informat întreprinderea respectivă 26/09/2015"];
  "Doamna Hakelbracht"->"institutul"[label="a depună plângere împotriva acestei întreprinderi"];
  "institutul"->"WTG Retail"[label="Prin e‑mailul transmis institutului la 11 decembrie 2015, această întreprindere a contestat în mod formal că a refuzat să o angajeze pe doamna Hakelbracht ca urmare a sarcinii sale.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Prin e‑mailul transmis institutului la 11 decembrie 2015 11/12/2015";
  "Prin e‑mailul transmis institutului la 11 decembrie 2015 11/12/2015"->"institutul";
  "Prin e‑mailul transmis institutului la 11 decembrie 2015 11/12/2015"->"Această întreprindere a contestat în mod formal că a refuzat să o angajeze pe doamna Hakelbracht ca urmare a sarcinii sale.."[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

Pani Hakelbrachtová v nadväznosti nato kontaktovala WTG Retail z dôvodu odmietnutia zamestnať ju, pričom uviedla, že zamýšľa podať sťažnosť proti tejto spoločnosti na Inštitút. Keďže WTG Retail po tomto nezmenila svoje stanovisko, pani Hakelbrachtová podala sťažnosť a informovala o tom túto spoločnosť 26. septembra 2015.
Dňa 5. októbra 2015 mala pani Vandenbonová pohovor s vedúcim pracovníkom spoločnosti WTG Retail, ktorý sa týkal nezamestnania pani Hakelbrachtovej a počas ktorého jej bolo vytýkané, že bola dôvodom sťažnosti, ktorú podala pani Hakelbrachtová.
Dňa 12. novembra 2015 Inštitút informoval WTG Retail o prijatí sťažnosti pani Hakelbrachtovej. E‑mailom zaslaným Inštitútu 11. decembra 2015 táto spoločnosť formálne poprela, že by odmietla zamestnať pani Hakelbrachtovú z dôvodu jej tehotenstva.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Pani Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Inštitút"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Pani Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="informovala o tom túto spoločnosť 26/09/2015"];
  "Pani Hakelbracht"->"Inštitút"[label="podať sťažnosť proti tejto spoločnosti"];
  "Inštitút"->"WTG Retail"[label="E‑mailom zaslaným Inštitútu 11. decembra 2015 táto spoločnosť formálne poprela, že by odmietla zamestnať pani Hakelbrachtovú z dôvodu jej tehotenstva.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"E‑mailom zaslaným Inštitútu 11. decembra 2015 11/12/2015";
  "E‑mailom zaslaným Inštitútu 11. decembra 2015 11/12/2015"->"Inštitút";
  "E‑mailom zaslaným Inštitútu 11. decembra 2015 11/12/2015"->"Formálne poprela, že by odmietla zamestnať pani Hakelbrachtovú z dôvodu jej tehotenstva.."[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

T. Hakelbracht je v zvezi z zavrnitvijo njene zaposlitve nato stopila v stik z družbo WTG Retail, pri čemer je navedla, da namerava zoper to družbo pri Inštitutu vložiti pritožbo. Ker družba WTG Retail pozneje svojega stališča ni spremenila, je J. Hakelbracht vložila pritožbo in o tem 26. septembra 2015 obvestila navedeno družbo.
T. Vandenbon se je 5. oktobra 2015 udeležila sestanka z vodjo podjetja WTG Retail glede zavrnitve zaposlitve J. Hakelbracht, med katerim ji je bilo očitano, da je vzrok za pritožbo, ki jo je slednja vložila.
Inštitut je družbo WTG Retail 12. novembra 2015 obvestil o prejemu pritožbe J. Hakelbracht. Ta družba je po elektronski pošti, ki jo je Inštitutu poslala 11. decembra 2015, uradno izpodbijala, da je zavrnila zaposlitev J. Hakelbracht zaradi njene nosečnosti.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "gospa Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Inštitut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "gospa Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="obvestila navedeno družbo. 26/09/2015"];
  "gospa Hakelbracht"->"Inštitut"[label="namerava zoper to družbo pri Inštitutu vložiti pritožbo."];
  "Inštitut"->"WTG Retail"[label="Ta družba je po elektronski pošti, ki jo je Inštitutu poslala 11. decembra 2015, uradno izpodbijala, da je zavrnila zaposlitev J. Hakelbracht zaradi njene nosečnosti.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"elektronski pošti 11/12/2015";
  "elektronski pošti 11/12/2015"->"Inštitut";
  "elektronski pošti 11/12/2015"->"uradno izpodbijala, da je zavrnila zaposlitev J. Hakelbracht zaradi njene nosečnosti.."[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

Hakelbracht otti tämän jälkeen yhteyttä WTG Retailiin tästä asiasta ja ilmoitti sille aikovansa tehdä valituksen tästä yrityksestä virastolle. Koska WTG Retail ei tämän johdosta muuttanut kantaansa, Hakelbracht teki valituksen ja ilmoitti siitä kyseiselle yritykselle 26.9.2015.
Vandenbon kävi 5.10.2015 WTG Retailin vastuuhenkilön kanssa Hakelbrachtin palvelukseen ottamatta jättämisestä keskustelun, jonka aikana yrityksen vastuuhenkilö moitti Vandenbonin olevan syynä siihen, että Hakelbracht teki valituksen.
Virasto ilmoitti WTG Retailille 12.11.2015 Hakelbrachtin valituksen vastaanottamisesta. Kyseinen yritys kiisti ehdottomasti virastolle 11.12.2015 evänneensä Hakelbrachtin palvelukseen ottamisen raskauden vuoksi.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "WTG Retail"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Virasto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"WTG Retail"[label="ilmoitti sille 26/09/2015"];
  "Hakelbracht Hakelbracht"->"Virasto"[label="tehdä valituksen tästä yrityksestä"];
  "Virasto"->"WTG Retail"[label="Kyseinen yritys kiisti ehdottomasti virastolle 11.12.2015 evänneensä Hakelbrachtin palvelukseen ottamisen raskauden vuoksi.."];
  "WTG Retail"->"Sähköposti 11/12/2015";
  "Sähköposti 11/12/2015"->"Virasto";
  "Sähköposti 11/12/2015"->"Kyseinen yritys kiisti ehdottomasti virastolle 11.12.2015 evänneensä Hakelbrachtin palvelukseen ottamisen raskauden vuoksi.."[dir=none];
    
}