- 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-5/24, Pauni: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Ravenna (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2024 — P.M. v S. Snc
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0005
62024CN0005
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
Series C
C/2024/2014
18.3.2024
(Case C-5/24, Pauni (*) )
(C/2024/2014)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: P.M.
Defendant: S. Snc
Questions referred
1.Does Directive 2000/78 (*) preclude national legislation which, by providing for the right to retain the post in the event of illness for 180 paid days, in the period from 1 January to 31 December of each year, in addition to a further 120 days of unpaid leave (which can be taken only once) at the worker’s request, does not provide for different rules between workers who can be classified as disabled and workers who cannot?
2.If the national legislation described in the grounds were to be regarded in the abstract as constituting indirect discrimination, is the legislation itself nevertheless objectively justified by a legitimate aim and are the means of achieving that aim appropriate and necessary?
3.Can the provision of unpaid leave, at the worker’s request, following the end of the 120 days of sick leave, which is capable of preventing dismissal until its expiry amount to suitable and sufficient reasonable accommodation for avoiding discrimination?
4.Can an accommodation consisting of the employer’s duty to grant — on the expiry of the period of 180 days of paid sick leave — a further period fully paid by it, without obtaining consideration for work, be regarded as reasonable?
5.For the purposes of assessing the discriminatory conduct of the employer, can (for the purposes of establishing the lawfulness or otherwise of the dismissal) the fact that even a [possible] further period of stability in the relationship paid for by the employer would not have enabled the disabled person to return to work, given his or her continuing illness, be taken into account?
(*) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000, L 303, p. 16).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2014/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)