(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Social policy– Directive 2000/78

13The applicant in the main proceedings was recruited as a specialist maintenance technician for railway tracks by HR Rail, the sole employer of railway staff in Belgium. On 21November 2016, he started a traineeship at Infrabel, the legal entity acting as the ‘management infrastructure’ for the Belgian railways. In December 2017, the applicant in the main proceedings was diagnosed with a heart condition that required the fitting of a pacemaker, a device which is sensitive to the electromagnetic fields present, inter alia, on railway tracks. Since that medical device was incompatible with the repeated exposure to electromagnetic fields to which a maintenance technician on railway tracks is subject, the applicant in the main proceedings was no longer capable of performing the duties for which he had originally been recruited.

14On 12June 2018, he was recognised as having a disability by the Service public fédéral ‘Sécurité sociale’ (Federal Public Service for Social Security, Belgium).

15By a decision of 28June 2018, the centre régional de la médecine de l’administration (the company’s regional medical centre, Belgium), responsible for assessing the medical capacity of Belgian Railway staff members, declared the applicant in the main proceedings to be permanently unfit to perform the duties for which he was recruited (‘the decision at issue’). The company’s regional medical centre stated, however, that he could be employed in a post which met the following requirements: ‘moderate activity, no exposure to magnetic fields, not at altitude or exposed to vibrations’.

16The applicant in the main proceedings was then assigned to a warehouseman’s position within the same undertaking.

17On 1July 2018, he brought an action against the decision at issue before the commission d’appel de la médecine de l’administration (the company’s Medical Appeals Board, Belgium).

18On 19July 2018, HR Rail informed the applicant in the main proceedings that he would receive ‘personalised support in order to find a new job with [the company]’ and that he would shortly be called for an interview for that purpose.

19On 3September 2018, the company’s Medical Appeals Board confirmed the decision at issue.

20On 26September 2018, the Senior Adviser– Head of department, informed the applicant in the main proceedings of his dismissal on 30September 2018 with a ban on his recruitment for a period of five years to the grade at which he had been recruited.

21On 26October 2018, the Managing Director of HR Rail informed the applicant in the main proceedings that, pursuant to the articles of association and general rules applicable to staff of the Belgian railway, his traineeship was terminated owing to his total and permanent incapacity to perform the duties for which he had been recruited. By contrast with staff members on confirmed permanent contracts, trainees who were recognised as having a disability and therefore no longer capable of performing their duties do not benefit from a reassignment within the company. The Managing Director also informed him that the letter offering him ‘personalised support’ was no longer valid.

22The applicant in the main proceedings brought before the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) an action to annul the decision of 26September 2018 informing him of his dismissal on 30September 2018.

23The referring court observes that health condition of the applicant in the main proceedings means that he may be classified as having a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the legislation transposing Directive 2000/78 into Belgian law. However, it observes that the national case-law has not consistently analysed the question of whether, in respect of ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of Article5 of that directive, it is necessary also to consider the possibility of redeploying to another job a person who, due to his or her disability, is no longer in a position to perform the job which he or she held before that disability arose.

24In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article5 of [Directive 2000/78] be interpreted as meaning that an employer has an obligation, in relation to a person who, due to his or her disability, is no longer capable of performing the essential functions of the post to which he or she was assigned, to assign him or her to another post, for which he or she has the requisite skills, capabilities and availability, where such a measure would not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer?’