- 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-136/25, Pemak: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2025 – S O v G GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0136
62025CN0136
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/2643
19.5.2025
(Case C-136/25, Pemak)
(C/2025/2643)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: S O
Defendant: G GmbH
Questions referred
When calculating a maximum assignment period laid down in national law in order to give specific expression to the criterion of ‘temporarily’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) must, in the event of a transfer of undertakings, the transferor and the transferee always be regarded as one ‘user undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 2008/104?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
When calculating a maximum assignment period laid down in national law in order to give specific expression to the criterion of ‘temporarily’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/104, must, in the event of a transfer of undertakings, the transferor and the transferee be regarded as one ‘user undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 2008/104 if they belong to the same group of undertakings and the same temporary agency worker is assigned without interruption to the same job?
If the answer to the first two questions is in the negative:
Must the transfer of a user establishment be taken into account in the context of monitoring whether, in the case of successive assignments of the same temporary agency worker, the duration can still be regarded as ‘temporary’ (Article 5(5) of Directive 2008/104)? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative, how is that transfer to be taken into account?
—
(1) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(2) Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2643/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—