Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/3

(Case C-103/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 2(a) - Article 10(1) to (3) - Prohibition of dismissal of a worker during the period from the beginning of her pregnancy to the end of her maternity leave - Scope - Exceptional cases not connected with the pregnant worker’s condition - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - Article 1(1)(a) - Reasons not related to the individual workers concerned - Pregnant worker dismissed in the context of a collective redundancy procedure - Reasons for the dismissal - Priority for retention of the post of the pregnant worker - Priority for redeployment))

(2018/C 134/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jessica Porras Guisado

Defendants: Bankia SA, Sección Sindical de Bankia de CCOO, Sección Sindical de Bankia de UGT, Sección Sindical de Bankia de ACCAM, Sección Sindical de Bankia de SATE, Sección Sindical de Bankia de CSICA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Joined party: Ministério Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 10(1) of 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 (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits the dismissal of a pregnant worker because of a collective redundancy within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

2.Article 10(2) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy without giving any grounds other than those justifying the collective dismissal, provided that the objective criteria chosen to identify the workers to be made redundant are cited.

3.Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not prohibit, in principle, the dismissal of a worker who is pregnant, has recently given birth or is breastfeeding as a preventative measure, but which provides, by way of reparation, only for that dismissal to be declared void when it is unlawful.

4.Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the context of a collective redundancy within the meaning of Directive 98/59, makes no provision for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding to be afforded, prior to that dismissal, priority status in relation to being either retained or redeployed, but as not excluding the right of Member States to provide for a higher level of protection for such workers.

*

Language of the case: Spanish.

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016