To put it in simple terms, a female employee is required by law to inform her employer of an existing pregnancy, and furthermore she is to provide a doctor?s note as a confirmation thereof on request. It is obvious that this may become problematic, and in the past there have been difficulties particularly in connection with redundancies and dismissals.As an example, courts had to deal with the issue whether non-compliance with the obligation to notification according to § 3 Abs 4 MSchG foils protection against unlawful dismissal. In addition, there were propagated problems in regard to violations of the obligation to produce medical verification as set out in § 10 Abs 2. Furthermore, this frequently raised the question when the obligation to notification applies: Does the employee have to announce a merely suspected pregnancy, or is she able to wait until she is certain? With respect to the time of the announcement in case of a dismissal, there is no unanimous agreement either. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is related to the individual cases in this context. While the point or period of time for this announcement is legally standardized in the event of a dismissal, it is non-existent in the case of a redundancy. The revision of the protection against redundancy in the MSchG has not led to a significant reduction of this problem either, so that the doctrines on this issue differ.The fact that there have been less Supreme Court-decisions on this subject matter is probably due to the consistent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Apart from the Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice plays an important role in regard to the duty of disclosure as well. In the case of Tele Danmark, for example, the EuGH pronounced for the first time that an applicant is not obliged to disclose a pregnancy in a job interview.