07 Oct European Court of Justice – october 2025
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Articles 2, 5 and 7 – Articles 21, 24 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 1 – Article 2(1) and (2)(b) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability – Indirect discrimination – Difference of treatment in respect of an employee who does not himself or herself have a disability but cares for his or her child who has a disability – Article 5 – Employer’s obligation to make reasonable accommodation ).
ECJ, 11 September 2025, Case C 38/24, Bervidi.
Link
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and, in particular, Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (2)(b), read in the light of Articles 21, 24 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, concluded in New York on 13 December 2006 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability applies to an employee who does not himself or herself have a disability but who is subject to such discrimination because of the assistance that that person provides to his or her child who has a disability, which enables that child to receive the primary care required by virtue of his or her condition.
Directive 2000/78 and, in particular, Article 5 thereof, read in the light of Articles 24 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2 and Article 7(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required, in order to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment of workers and the prohibition of indirect discrimination referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, to make reasonable accommodation, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, in respect of an employee who does not himself or herself have a disability but who provides, to his or her child who has a disability, the assistance which enables that child to receive the primary care required by virtue of his or her condition, provided that that accommodation does not impose an unreasonable burden on that employer.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 2 – Discrimination based on disability – Dismissal of a worker on sick leave – National legislation laying down the same limit of number of days of sick leave per calendar year for all workers in the same sector of activity – Article 5 – Reasonable accommodation.
ECJ, 11 September, Case C 5/24, Pauni.
Link
Article 2(2) and Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which confers on a worker on sick leave a right to retain his or her post for a paid and renewable period of 180 days per calendar year, in addition to, in certain cases and at the request of that worker, an unpaid and non-renewable period of 120 days, without providing for specific rules for workers with disabilities, provided that:
– that national legislation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the social policy aim of ensuring the ability and availability of the worker to carry out his or her professional activity, and that
– that national legislation does not prevent full compliance with the requirements laid down in that Article 5.
Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision providing, for the benefit of a worker on sick leave but without regard to his or her possible disability, for an unpaid post retention period of 120 days, in addition to a paid post retention period of 180 days, does not constitute ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of that article.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59/EC – Article 1(1) – Scope – Concept of ‘redundancy’ – Collective internal mobility agreement – Redundancies for economic reasons based on the refusal to apply that agreement – Termination of the employment contract on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned – Article 2 – Procedures for information and consultation with workers’ representatives ).
ECJ, 4 September 2025, Case C 249/24, Ineo Infracom
Link
1. Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
must be interpreted as meaning that in order to assess whether terminations of employment contracts based on the refusal, by workers, to consent to the terms of a collective agreement relating to internal mobility being applied to their employment contract must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘redundancies’ within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph of that provision, the referring court must examine whether, having regard to that collective agreement and to the terms of the employment contract, the workers concerned are required to accept the change of geographical assignment proposed by the employer and, if that question is answered in the negative, whether that change constitutes a substantial change to an essential element of the employment contract, with the result that it must be taken into account in calculating the number of redundancies. If that condition were not satisfied, the termination of the employment contract following the worker’s refusal to accept such a change would constitute a termination of that contract on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of that directive, with the result that it must also be taken into account in calculating the number of redundancies.
2. Article 2 of Directive 98/59
must be interpreted as meaning that the information and consultation of workers’ representatives prior to the conclusion of a collective agreement relating to internal mobility are able to be considered to constitute consultation within the meaning of that article, provided that the information obligations laid down in paragraph 3 thereof are complied with.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Migrant workers – Legislation applicable – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 13(1) – Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 – Article 14(8) and (10) – Worker normally employed in several Member States – Pursuit of less than 25 % of the activity in the Member State of residence – Concept of ‘substantial part of the activity’ – Connecting factors relating to working time and/or remuneration – Consideration of other circumstances – Length of the assessment period – Discretion of the competent institutions ).
ECJ, 4 September 2025, Case C 203/24, KN v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank,
Link
Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States carries out a substantial part of that activity in the Member State of residence, it is for the competent institution to ascertain, in the context of an overall assessment of that person’s situation, whether at least 25 % of his or her working time and/or remuneration is completed and/or obtained respectively in that State. In that context, there is no need to take into account other circumstances or criteria.
Article 14(8) and (10) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess, in the context of the overall assessment of the situation of a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States, whether that person pursues a substantial part of his or her activity in the Member State of residence, account must be taken of his or her situation projected for the following 12 calendar months.
