- 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-404/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2018 — Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0404
62018CN0404
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
3.9.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 311/8
(Case C-404/18)
(2018/C 311/07)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen
Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA
Question referred
Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings?
(1) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
* * *
Language of the case: Dutch.