In a judgment, the Court answered in the affirmative.
Although the Labour Code does not regulate either such a situation or the conditions for an employer’s voluntary closure of his company, the Court decided to give precedence to the legitimate decision of the employer to cease any commercial activity over and above any protection of pregnant employees.
The Court of Appeal thus observed that to require an employer to continue his business on account of an employee being pregnant and in the exclusive interests of that employee would impose unacceptable restrictions on the authority of the employer, except in cases of clear abuse of the law, to take decisions as to the future of his company.
It would therefore be contrary to the principle of freedom of establishment to require an employer to continue his business in the exclusive interests of an employee who is pregnant.
It is only if the decision to cease trading is manifestly abusive that the employer’s freedom comes up against limits.