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.
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.
Too short time period. In Luxembourg law, pregnant women who are dismissed have 15 days to introduce an ac
…Do you have information to share with us?