[2004] ICR 610, ECJ, (Case C-109/00, judgment on 4th October 2001)
NOTES

  • Tele Danmark A-S v. Handels-og etc on behalf of Brandt-Nielsen, [2004] ICR 610, ECJ, (Case C-109/00 - 2001 Mar 29, May 10 and Oct 4, President of Chamber A La Pergola, Judges M Wathelet, P Jann, L Sevón and CWA Timmermans, Advocate General D Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer);
  • the full text of this ECJ judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website

  • Jimenez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de los Barrios [2004], ICR 610, ECJ, (Case C-438/99 - 2001 Mar 29, June 7 and, Oct 4, President of Chamber A La Pergola, Judges M Wathelet, P Jann, L Sevón and CWA Timmermans, Advocate General A Tizzano)
  • the full text of this ECJ judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website
    Authority for the following propositions:-

    1. the EC Pregnant Workers' Directive (92/85) and Equal Treatment Directive (76/207) prohibit the dismissal of a pregnant woman in circumstances where she was recruited for a fixed period, she failed to inform the employer that she was pregnant even though she was aware of this when the contract of employment was concluded, and because of her pregnancy she was unable to work during a substantial part of the term of that contract.

    2. article 10 of the Pregnant Workers' Directive (92/85) has direct effect (so an employee can claim rights under it even if it has not been transposed into local legislation)

    3. the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, when it expires in accordance with its terms, is not a dismissal within the scope of Article 10 of the Pregnant Workers' Directive (92/85), but where non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is motivated by the worker's state of pregnancy, it constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207).

    For relevant general notes see Sex discrimination/pregnancy and maternity .


    FINISH>
    prepared June2008