C) Cases of the Court of Justice
The following cases were selected for their relevance to reproductive and sexual heath rights, and were obtained from: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_case.html. Only judgments from 1990 onwards were included. They are listed in reverse chrolonogical order.
DECISIONS
Council Directives Referred to:
75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women.
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.
86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood
92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992, on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
Maria Luisa Jiménez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios,
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001, Case C-438/99
European Court reports 2001 Page 0000
Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992, has direct effect and is to be interpreted to the effect that, in the absence of transposition measures taken by a Member State within the period prescribed by that directive, it confers on individuals rights on which they may rely before a national court against the authorities of that State.
Where non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is motivated by the worker's state of pregnancy, it constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1) and 3(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976.
In providing that the dismissal of a pregnant worker, of a worker who has recently given birth or of a worker who is breastfeeding may take place, in exceptional cases and, where applicable, provided that the competent authority has given its consent, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85 is not to be interpreted as imposing on Member States any obligation to have a national authority, having found that there is an exceptional case justifying the dismissal of a pregnant worker, give its consent prior to the employer's decision to dismiss the worker.
Julia Schnorbus v Land Hessen Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000, Case C-79/99
European Court reports 2000 Page I-0000
National provisions governing the date of admission to the practical legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of access to employment in the civil service fall within the scope of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976.
National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute discrimination directly based on sex.
National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute indirect discrimination based on sex.
Directive 76/207 does not preclude national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as such provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.
Angelo Ferlini v Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000, Case C-411/98
European Court reports 2000 Page I-8081
The application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare providers to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital maternity care which are higher than those applicable to residents affiliated with the national social security scheme constitutes discrimination on the ground of nationality prohibited under the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 12 EC), in the absence of objective justification in this respect.
Birgitte Jorgensen v. Foreningen af Speciallager, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 6 April 2000 (1), Case C-226/98
In order to determine whether indirect discrimination on grounds of sex exists in a case concerning equal treatment such as the present case, Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 and Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 must be interpreted as requiring a separate assessment to be made of each of the key conditions governing the exercise of a professional activity laid down in the contested provisions, in so far as those key elements constitute in themselves specific measures based on their own criteria of application and affecting a significant number of persons belonging to a determined category.
Budgetary considerations cannot in themselves justify discrimination on grounds of sex. However, measures intended to ensure sound management of public expenditure on specialised medical care and to guarantee people's access to such care may be justified if they meet a legitimate objective of social policy, are appropriate to attain that objective and are necessary to that end.
Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v. Örebro läns landsting, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 30 March 2000 (1), Case C-236/98
Directive 75/117/EEC - Comparison of a midwife's pay with that of a clinical technician. Taking into account a supplement and a reduction in working time for inconvenient working hours:
the inconvenient-hours supplement is not to be taken into account in calculating the salary used as the basis for a pay comparison for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty were replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975. If a difference in pay between the two groups compared is found to exist, and if the available statistical data indicate that there is a substantially higher proportion of women than men in the disadvantaged group, Article 119 of the Treaty requires the employer to justify the difference by objective factors which are unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Neither the reduction in working time, by reference to the standard normal working time for day-work, awarded in respect of work performed according to a three-shift roster, nor the value of such a reduction, are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the salary used as the basis for a pay comparison for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117. However, such a reduction may constitute an objective reason unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex such as to justify a difference in pay. It is for the employer to show such is in fact the case
|