Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV [2012] EUECJ C-202/11 (12 July 2012)

Article 45 TFEU precludes legislation imposing exclusive use of a regional official language for drafting employment documents in cross-border employment relations, on pain of nullity, as such measures are disproportionate and unjustified obstacles to the freedom of movement for workers.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2012] EUECJ C-202/11
Parties: Applicant: Anton Las; Respondent: PSA Antwerp NV
Jurisdiction: European Union
Judgment Date: 12 July 2012
Procedural Posture: Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General
Outcome: Article 45 TFEU precludes the Flemish Decree on Use of Languages in cross-border employment relations.
Legal Topics: Freedom of Movement for Workers, Language Requirements in Employment Contracts, Discrimination, Proportionality, National Identity

European Union Law Labour Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Movement for Workers Language Requirements in Employment Contracts Discrimination Proportionality National Identity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Anton Las

Applicant

PSA Antwerp NV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General

Legal Issues

1 Does the Flemish Decree on Use of Languages infringe Article 45 TFEU by imposing an obligation to draft employment documents exclusively in Dutch, on pain of nullity, in cross-border employment relations?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Article 45 TFEU precludes the Flemish Decree on Use of Languages in cross-border employment relations.

Orders

Member States must not impose exclusive language requirements for employment documents in cross-border contexts on pain of nullity.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.