Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA (C-232/09)
Judgment
The questions referred to the Court
The second question
58

Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA (C-232/09)

Judgment of 11 Nov 2010law://eu/cjeu/2009/c-232-09/para_58@2026-11-11

58As regards the scope of the prohibition on dismissal laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, it should first be recalled that the objective of Directive 92/85 is to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-232/09 · ECLI:EU:C:2010:674
Decided: 11 Nov 2010
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Latvia)
Applicant: Dita Danosa
Defendant: LKB Līzings SIA
Rapporteur: A. Ó Caoimh
Advocate General: Y. Bot
Bench: 5 judges
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Arabadjiev, A. Rosas, A. Ó Caoimh, P. Lindh
Language: Latvian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62009CJ0232

Topics

History · 1 version

11 Nov 2010Reading

Connections

Interprets 2: Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
Cited by 14: Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso (C-135/10); Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others v F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim (C-47/14); Jessica Porras Guisado v Bankia SA and Others (C-103/16); J.K. v TP S.A (C-356/21); Elda Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saúde and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (C-531/15); Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH (C-216/15); Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (C-229/14)2 provisions; Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI) and Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM) (C-65/14)2 provisions; Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli (C-270/13); Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi (C-146/14 PPU); C. D. v S. T (C-167/12)2 provisions; European Commission v Italian Republic (C-596/12); BG v European Ombudsman (F-54/11); Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-454/10)2 provisions
Cites 20: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood; Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 (C-22/08); Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (66/85); Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Professional and Secretary of State for Education and Employment (C-256/01); Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki (C-116/06); Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Text with EEA relevance); Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex; Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (C-424/97); Nadine Paquay v Société d’architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL (C-460/06); Carole Louise Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (C-32/93); World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others (C-435/97); I. Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (344/87); Mary Brown v Rentokil Ltd (C-394/96); Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund i Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (C-179/88); Tele Danmark A/S v Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) (C-109/00); North Western Health Board v Margaret McKenna (C-191/03); V. J. M. Raulin v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (C-357/89)