Facts. On January 25,
2007, a registered letter informed Mrs. Pontin, employed by T-Comalux in
Luxembourg, that she was being dismissed for gross misconduct after three days
of unjustified absence. The day after, the claimant sent her employer a
registered letter with advice of delivery explaining that she was pregnant and
including a sick leave from January 25 to February 4, 2007. In this letter, she
reminded her employer that she was protected against dismissal and that the termination
of the contract was null and void. This letter remained
unanswered. After a first action for annulment of the dismissal which couldn’t
succeed because she didn’t turn to the right judge, the complainant who, after
this mistake, was out of time to lodge a new complaint on this case, lodged a
complaint for unfair dismissal. This is when the Luxembourg judge asked the
European Court of Justice prejudicial questions on the compatibility with
Community Law of Luxembourg’s Labor Code provisions which define the appeal
modalities for dismissed pregnant women.
at the termination
of the contract was null and void. This letter remained
unanswered. After a first action for annulment of the dismissal which couldn’t
succeed because she didn’t turn to the right judge, the complainant who, after
this mistake, was out of time to lodge a new complaint on this case, lodged a
complaint for unfair dismissal. This is when the Luxembourg judge asked the
European Court of Justice prejudicial questions on the compatibility with
Community Law of Luxembourg’s Labor Code provisions which define the appeal
modalities for dismissed pregnant women.
Do you have information to share with us?