In this reporting period (November 2020-March 2021), five cases will be presented. The first case is INPS v WS (C-302/19), dealing with the Italian legislation that excludes Single Permit holders from receiving family benefits for their family members residing in a third country. In the second report, two cases rendered on the same day by the Grand Chamber of the Court are discussed. In D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija (C-344/19) and RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main (C-580/19), the Court clarified the circumstances under which periods of stand-by time could be considered as ‘working time’ or, alternatively, ‘rest periods’ under Directive 2003/88. XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (C-129/20) is the third case reported. It concerns an interpretation of the Framework Agreement on parental leave in the light of the Luxembourg legislation, which requires parents to be employed at the time of their child’s birth to benefit from parental leave. Finally, the case report ends with VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie (C-16/19), a case of discrimination on grounds of disability.

在本报告期（2020年11月至2021年3月），将提出5个案例。第一个案件是INPS v WS（C-302 / 19），涉及意大利法律，该法律禁止单身许可证持有人为其居住在第三国的家庭成员领取家庭补助。在第二份报告中，讨论了法院大法庭在同一天提出的两个案件。在DJ诉Radiotelevizija Slovenija（C-344 / 19）和RJ诉Stadt Offenbach am Main（C-580 / 19）中，法院澄清了在何种情况下可以将待命时间视为“工作时间”，或者或者，根据指令2003/88的“休息期”。十一诉凯撒大帝的孩子（C-129 / 20）是第三例。它涉及根据卢森堡法律对育儿假框架协议的解释，该法律要求父母在子女出生时受雇才能享受育儿假。最后，该案例报告以VL诉Szpital Kliniczny im案告终。dra J.BabińskiegoSamodzielny PublicznyZakładOpieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie（C-16 / 19），一宗基于残疾的歧视案。