A pregnant worker must be afforded a reasonable time limit in order to be able to bring an action against her dismissal (ECJ)

According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-284/23 (Haus Jacobus) a pregnant worker must be afforded a reasonable time limit in order to be able to bring an action against her dismissal. A two-week time limit for making a request for leave to intervene appears to be insufficient. 

A care-home employee challenges her dismissal before a German labour court. She relies on the prohibition of dismissal for pregnant women. The labour court considers that the action should normally be dismissed on the ground that it was brought out of time. 

When the employee became aware of her pregnancy and brought the action, the ordinary time limit of three weeks following notification in writing of the dismissal, laid down by German law, had already lapsed. Furthermore, the employee failed to submit a request for leave to bring an action out of time within the additional time limit of two weeks [1] laid down by that law. 

The labour court asks, however, whether the German legislation at issue is compatible with the Directive on pregnant workers [2] . It therefore refers a question to the Court of Justice on that matter. The Court observes that, according to German legislation, a pregnant worker who is aware, at the time of her dismissal, of her pregnancy has a period of three weeks in which to bring an action [3] . 

By contrast, a worker who is not aware of her pregnancy before that time limit has lapsed, for a reason not attributable to her, has only two weeks to seek to make a request to bring such an action. According to the Court, such a short time limit, particularly in comparison with the ordinary time limit of three weeks, appears to be incompatible with the directive [4] . 

Indeed, in view of the situation of a woman at the start of pregnancy, it seems likely to make it very difficult for a pregnant worker to obtain effective advice and, as the case may be, to prepare and submit a request for leave to bring an action out of time and to bring the action itself. It is, however, for the labour court to ascertain whether that is indeed the case. (source: curia.europa.eu/ photo freepik.com)

The decision is available here

______________

1 After the obstacle to bringing an action was removed. 

2 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. 

3 After that time limit has expired, the dismissal is deemed to be valid unless a request for leave to bring an action out of time is made. 

4 In its judgment of 29 October 2009, Pontin, C-63/08 (see also press release No 98/09), the Court already gave a ruling to that effect in relation to a time limit of 15 days, for a pregnant worker, to bring an action seeking a declaration that her dismissal was invalid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

The name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/23 (Escobar v EUIPO) the name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark. The public would associate that name with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.  On 30 September 2021, Escobar Inc., established in Puerto Rico (United States), filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of the word sign Pablo Escobar as an EU trade mark for a wide range of goods and services.  The Colombian national named Pablo Escobar, who was born on 1 December 1949 and died on 2 December 1993, is presumed to be a drug lord and a narco-terrorist who founded and was the sole leader of the Medellín cartel (Colombia).  EUIPO rejected the application for registration on the ground that the mark was contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality. It relied on the perception of the Spanish public, as it is the most familiar with Pablo Escobar due to the links between Spa
Read more

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

Image
One of the highest fines for violation of unfair competition law has been imposed (28/4/2020) on online hotel booking platform ‘’Booking.com’’ by the Hungarian Competition Authority. The amount of the fine (approximately EUR 6 million / HUF 2.5 billion) imposed by the Authority illustrates the seriousness of the Dutch company's violations. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) imposed a fine of HUF 2.5 billion on the operator of the online booking portal booking.com, and at the same time banned the Dutch company from continuing its aggressive sales methods. According to the decision of the competition authority, Booking.com B.V. engaged in unfair commercial practices against consumers by, among other things, misleadingly advertising some of its accommodations with a free cancellation option and exerting undue psychological pressure on consumers to make early bookings. As a result of the Competition Authority’s competition supervision proceeding  initiated in 2018, the autho
Read more

The rules of UEFA on ‘homegrown players’ could be contrary to EU law (ECJ)

Image
According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice (21.12.2023) in Case C-680/21 (Royal Antwerp Football Club),  the rules of UEFA and the Belgian football association on ‘homegrown players’ could be contrary to EU law. A footballer and a Belgian club are challenging UEFA’s rules and those of the Belgian football association that require a minimum number of ‘home-grown players’ to be included in teams. The Court holds that that requirement could infringe both competition rules and the free movement of workers. However, the national court in charge of the case will have to verify whether or not that is the case. UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) requires football clubs to have a minimum number of ‘home-grown players’ in their teams. The Belgian football association (URBSFA) has adopted similar rules. In both cases, those rules define ‘home-grown players’ as players who are trained at national level, although UEFA’s rules also refer to players trained within a given club. A p
Read more

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

Image
60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President. The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year. Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications. The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'
Read more

McDonald’s loses the EU trade mark Big Mac in respect of poultry products

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-58/23 (Supermac’s v EUIPO), McDonald’s loses the EU trade mark Big Mac in respect of poultry products. The General Court holds that McDonald’s has not proved genuine use within a continuous period of five years in the European Union in connection with certain goods and services. Supermac’s and McDonald’s, an Irish and American fast-food chain respectively, are involved in a dispute regarding the EU trade mark Big Mac. That trade mark had been registered for McDonald’s in 1996. In 2017, Supermac’s filed an application for revocation of that mark in relation to certain goods and services. It submitted that the mark had not been put to genuine use in the European Union in connection with those goods and services within a continuous period of five years.  The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) partially upheld that application. However, it confirmed the protection which the contested mark conferred on McDonald’s in r
Read more

The Lawyer's right to refuse the defense of an accused person for ethical reasons

Image
by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. Lawyers have the right to refuse to undertake a case when it conflicts with their moral principles, their dignity and conscience. Both the Code of Lawyers in Greece and the Code of Lawyers 'Ethics in Cyprus provide the legal framework to support this choice.   The Greek Legislation The lawyer's right to refuse the defense of a specific defendant in a criminal trial clearly follows from the wording of article 37 of the Lawyers' Code (Law 4194/2013). According to paragraph 1 of this article, the lawyer has an obligation to undertake any case, unless it is manifestly unfounded, not amenable to defense, conflicts with the interests of other clients or goes against his/her principles. According to paragraph 2, the lawyer must undertake the defense of any accused, if requested by the judicial authorities, subject to paragraph 1. The reasons for refusing to undertake a case are expanded by article 6 of the Greek Code of Ethics of the Legal Pro
Read more