Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 27 January 1994

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

3 Judgment in Case 111/75 Mazzalai [1976] ECR 657, paragraph 10/11.

4 Judgment in Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8.

5 Judgment in Case C-177/88 Dekker [1990] ECR I-3941, paragraph 12.

6 Judgment in Case 184/83 Hofmann [1984] ECR 3047, paragraph 25.

7 That national law, moreover, lays down a prohibition on assigning to pregnant women nighttime work and not on engaging such women.

8 Judgment in Case C-179/88 Handels-og Kontorfunktionaer- emes fortuna [1990] ECR 3979, paragraph 13.

9 In that connection, it might be helpful to bear in mind that, referring to the Hertz judgment, the Bundesarbeitsgericht considered, thereby reversing its earlier decisions, that an employer may not have a contract of employment entered into with a pregnant woman terminated on the basis of Paragraph 119(2) of the Civil Code, that is by claiming to have been intentionally misled as to the existence of the pregnancy (judgment of 15 October 1992, 2 AZR 227/92).

10 OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

11 Judgment cited above at footnote 7, especially paragraphs 14-17.

12 Judgment cited at footnote 4, paragraph 12.