Silke-Karin Mahlburg v. Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 3 February 2000 (1), Case C-207/98
Article 2(1) and (3) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 precludes a refusal to appoint a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground that a statutory prohibition on employment attaching to the condition of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the outset and for the duration of the pregnancy.
Tanja Kreil v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Judgment of the Court 11 January 2000 (1), Case C-285/98
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 precludes the application of national provisions, such as those of German law, which impose a general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of arms and which allow them access only to the medical and military-music services.
Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)21 October 1999 (1), Case C-333/97
A Christmas bonus of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), even if it is paid voluntarily by the employer and even if it is paid mainly or exclusively as an incentive for future work or loyalty to the undertaking or both. However, it does not fall within the concept of payment within the meaning of Article 11(2)(b) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992.
Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer from excluding female workers on parenting leave entirely from the benefit of a bonus paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas without taking account of the work done in the year in which the bonus is paid or of the periods for the protection of mothers (in which they were prohibited from working) where that bonus is awarded retroactively as pay for work performed in the course of that year.
However, neither Article 119 of the Treaty nor Article 11(2) of Directive 92/85 nor Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICEF, CEEP and the ETUC precludes a refusal to pay such a bonus to a woman on parenting leave where the award of that allowance is subject to the sole condition that the worker must be in active employment when it is awarded.
Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85 and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Directive 96/34 do not preclude an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus to a female worker who is on parenting leave, from taking periods of parenting leave into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata. However, Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus, from taking periods for the protection of mothers (in which they were prohibited from working) into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.
Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and Others v. Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 16 September 1999 (1), Case C-218/98
The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude the making of a lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being away from work.
Gabriele Gruber v. Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG, Judgment of the Court 14 September 1999 (1), Case C-249/97
Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude national legislation under which a termination payment is granted to workers who end their employment relationship prematurely in order to take care of their children owing to a lack of child-care facilities for them, where that payment is reduced in relation to that received, for the same actual period of employment, by workers who give notice of resignation for an important reason related to working conditions in the undertaking or to the employer's conduct.
The fact that in the Member State concerned nurseries are mostly run by the public services or with their financial support does not affect the answer given to the first question.
Hoj Pedersen & others v. Kvickly Skive, Bagner, Rasmussen & Hyitfeldt Guld og Solv ApS, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 November 1998 (1) Case C-66/96
It is contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 for national legislation to provide that a pregnant woman who, before the beginning of her maternity leave, is unfit for work by reason of a pathological condition connected with her pregnancy, as attested by a medical certificate, is not entitled to receive full pay from her employer but benefits paid by a local authority, when in the event of incapacity for work on grounds of illness, as attested by a medical certificate, a worker is in principle entitled to receive full pay from his or her employer.
It is not contrary to Article 119 of the Treaty or Directive 75/117 for national legislation to provide that a pregnant woman is not entitled to receive her pay from her employer where, before the beginning of her maternity leave, she is absent from work by reason either of routine pregnancy-related inconveniences, when there is in fact no incapacity for work, or of medical recommendation intended to protect the unborn child but not based on an actual pathological condition or on any special risks for the unborn child, while any worker who is unfit for work on the grounds of illness is in principle entitled thereto.
It is contrary to Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 and to Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 for national legislation to provide that an employer may send home a woman who is pregnant, although not unfit for work, without paying her salary in full when he considers that he cannot provide work for her.
Margaret Boyle and Others v. Equal Opportunities Commission, Judgment of the Court 27 October 1998 (1) Case C-411/96
Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 and Article 11 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 do not preclude a clause in an employment contract which makes the payment, during the period of maternity leave referred to by Article 8 of Directive 92/85, of pay higher than the statutory payments in respect of maternity leave conditional on the worker's undertaking to return to work after the birth of the child for at least one month, failing which she is required to repay the difference between the amount of the pay she will have received during the period of maternity leave, on the one hand, and the amount of those payments, on the other.
Article 8 of Directive 92/85 and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 do not preclude a clause in an employment contract from requiring an employee who has expressed her intention to commence her maternity leave during the six weeks preceding the expected week of childbirth, and is on sick leave with a pregnancy-related illness immediately before that date and gives birth during the period of sick leave, to bring forward the date on which her paid maternity leave commences either to the beginning of the sixth week preceding the expected week of childbirth or to the beginning of the period of sick leave, whichever is the later.
A clause in an employment contract which prohibits a woman from taking sick leave during the minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave to which a female worker is entitled pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 92/85, unless she elects to return to work and thus terminate her maternity leave, is not compatible with Directive 92/85. By contrast, a clause in an employment contract which prohibits a woman from taking sick leave during a period of supplementary maternity leave granted to her by the employer, unless she elects to return to work and thus terminate her maternity leave, is compatible with Directives 76/207 and 92/85.
Directives 92/85 and 76/207 do not preclude a clause in an employment contract from limiting the period during which annual leave accrues to the minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave to which female workers are entitled under Article 8 of Directive 92/85 and from providing that annual leave ceases to accrue during any period of supplementary maternity leave granted to them by their employer.
Directive 92/85 precludes a clause in an employment contract from limiting, in the context of an occupational scheme wholly financed by the employer, the accrual of pension rights during the period of maternity leave referred to by Article 8 of that directive to the period during which the woman receives the pay provided for by that contract or national legislation.
|