- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-437/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0437
62017CN0437
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.11.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 382/28
(Case C-437/17)
(2017/C 382/34)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH
Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH
Question referred
Are Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that in the main proceedings (Paragraph 3(2)(1) in conjunction with Paragraph 3(3) and Paragraph 2(1) of the Urlaubsgesetz (Law on holidays, ‘the UrlG’)), under which a worker who has a total of 25 years of service, but has not completed these with the same Austrian employer, is entitled to only five weeks of annual holiday, whereas a worker who has completed 25 years of service with the same Austrian employer is entitled to six weeks of holiday per year.
Language of the case: German.
Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.
* * *