Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:261
Date: 2025-04-10
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-584/23 – 1 
Case C-584/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
21 September 2023 
Referring court:  
Juzgado de lo Social n.º 3 de Barcelona (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 September 2023 
Applicants:  
Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad Social n.º 151 
KT 
Defendants: 
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) 
Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) 
Alcampo S. A., successor to Supermercados Sabeco, S. A. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Social security – Accident at work – Pension for total permanent invalidity 
resulting from an accident at work – Pension calculation – Basic pension amount 
in the case of a reduction in the working day to care for a child – Principle of 
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Indirect 
discrimination on grounds of sex 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Article 267 TFEU – 
Compliance of a series of national provisions relating to social security with 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-584/23 
 
2  
primary EU law and with Directives 79/7/EEC and 2006/54/EC – Indirect 
discrimination on grounds of sex 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is the Spanish rule on calculating the basic amount of benefits for permanent 
invalidity resulting from an accident at work, established in Article 60 of the 
Decreto de 22 de junio de 1956 (Decree of 22 June 1956), contrary to the 
EU rules established in Article 4 of Council Directive 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 and 
Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal 
opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of 
employment and occupation (recast), in so far as this would constitute a case 
of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, since it is mostly women who 
reduce their working hours to care for children and therefore the benefit 
entitlement is clearly lower? 
2. Bearing in mind that the Spanish rule establishing the method used to 
calculate benefits for permanent invalidity resulting from an accident at 
work – Article 60(2) of the Decree of 22 June 1956 – takes account of the 
salary actually received at the time of the accident, and that the Spanish 
public social security system establishes, as a contributory family benefit – 
Article 237(3) of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Social 
Security Law) – that, during the first two years of the period when working 
hours are reduced to care for a child, as provided for in Article 37(6) of the 
Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Statute of Workers’ Rights), [the 
contributions] are increased to 100%, and that, according to statistical data, 
90% of the persons applying for a reduction of working hours to care for a 
child are women, are the above-mentioned Spanish rules contrary to 
Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union, Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 
2006/54/EC, and do they constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of 
sex? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 8 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 21 and 23 
Council Directive 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, Articles 1, 3 and 4 
ASEPEYO MUTUA COLABORADORA DE LA SEGURIDAD SOCIAL N.º 151 
 
3 
Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 
2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal 
treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, 
Articles 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9. 
Judgment of 16 July 2009, Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho, (C-537/07, 
EU:C:2009:462): paragraphs 58 to 62 
Judgment of 18 September 2019, Ortiz Mesonero, C-366/18, EU:C:2019:757 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto de 22 de junio de 1956 por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la 
legislación de accidentes del trabajo y Reglamento para su aplicación (Decree of 
22 June 1956 approving the consolidated text of the legislation on accidents at 
work and the relevant implementing regulations), Article 60 of the section entitled 
‘Aplicación del Reglamento de seguro de accidentes del Trabajo’ (Implementation 
of the Regulation on insurance against accidents at work) 
Consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Law on the Statute 
of Workers’ Rights), approved by Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2015, de 23 de 
octubre (Royal Legislative Decree No 2/2015 of 23 October 2015), Article 37(6) 
Consolidated text of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Social 
Security Law), approved by Real Decreto Legislativo 8/2015, de 30 de octubre 
(Royal Legislative Decree No 8/2015 of 30 October 2015), Article 237(1) and (3) 
(in the wording in force prior to the amendment of the latter paragraph by Real 
Decreto-Ley 2/2023 (Royal Decree-Law No 2/2023)) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Ms KT (‘the worker’) worked as a cashier for the company Supermercados 
Sabeco (Sabeco Supermarkets) (‘the company’). From 2 January 2008, she 
worked, under Article 37(6) of the consolidated text of the Statute of Workers’ 
Rights, on a reduced working-day basis, at 50% of the normal working day, to 
care for her son, who was under 12 years of age. That situation of reduced 
working hours for childcare came to an end on 6 October 2019. 
2 On 13 April 2019, she suffered an accident at work, specifically a fall at her 
workplace, which initially did not require any medical leave, but which resulted in 
temporary invalidity from 29 October 2019. As a result of various complications 
of her injuries, which led to surgery, the Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social 
(National Social Security Institute; ‘the INSS’) took a decision on 2 August 2021 
declaring that the worker had a total occupational invalidity in respect of her usual 
occupation, with entitlement to a pension of 75% of the basic amount, an amount 
which, in accordance with Article 60(2) of the Spanish Decree of 22 June 1956, is 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-584/23 
 
4  
calculated on the basis of the actual salary of the injured person at the time of the 
accident and was set at EUR 8 341.44 per annum. The previous claims brought by 
both the mutual insurance company Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad 
Social n.º 151 (‘the mutual insurance company’) and the worker against that 
decision were dismissed on 10 February 2022. 
3 Two actions have been brought in the context of the present dispute and have been 
joined by the referring court, one by the mutual insurance company challenging 
the INSS decision referred to in the previous paragraph on the grounds that the 
injuries suffered by the worker are non-disabling permanent injuries and therefore 
do not constitute permanent invalidity, and the other by the worker, whose 
employment relationship with the company was terminated by dismissal on 
14 June 2019. The action brought by the insurance company is not the subject of 
the reference for a preliminary ruling. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 In her application, the worker is seeking to have the basic amount of the pension 
for total permanent invalidity in respect of her usual occupation resulting from an 
accident at work set without taking into account the fact that her working hours 
were reduced by 50% in order to care for her child, and thus that her salary be 
calculated at 100% for that purpose and that the basic amount of the pension be 
set at EUR 1 353 per month, or, EUR 16 236 per annum (instead of the 
EUR 8 341.44 per annum set by the INSS in its decision of 2 August 2021). The 
worker submits that if the reduced salary were to be calculated based on the 
working day actually worked, that would result in indirect discrimination on 
grounds of sex, since 90% of the people who request reduced working hours to 
care for children are women. She is therefore claiming that an apparently neutral 
provision – which lays down the method for calculating the basic benefit 
amount – is prejudicial to women and places them at a particular disadvantage 
compared with men, and is therefore contrary to Directive 79/7. 
5 The INSS is defending the decision of 2 August 2021 and maintains that the basic 
amount of the worker’s pension was set according to the information contained in 
the wage certificate issued by the company and ratified by the mutual insurance 
company. 
6 The INSS argues that if the accident had occurred within the first two years when 
the worker’s working hours were reduced (since the reform of Article 237(3) of 
the consolidated text of the General Social Security Law by Royal Decree-Law 
No 2/2023, this is currently three years), the contribution base that would have 
been taken into account in calculating the basic amount would have been 100% of 
the amount that would have applied to the worker if she had not reduced her 
working hours. However, because more than two years had elapsed since the 
worker’s working hours were reduced, the contribution base to be taken as a 
reference was that corresponding to the working day actually worked, that is to 
ASEPEYO MUTUA COLABORADORA DE LA SEGURIDAD SOCIAL N.º 151 
 
5 
say, the reduced working hours. It therefore submits that it was fully justified in 
determining the amount of the benefits under the public social security scheme in 
accordance with the part-time worker’s actual remuneration, and the reduction in 
working hours to care for her child does not justify a solution other than that 
supported by paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
16 July 2019 in Case C537/07, Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho 
(EU:C:2009:462). It therefore submits that neither primary EU law (Article 8 
TFEU and Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union) nor secondary EU law (Directive 79/7, Directive 2010/18 or 
Directive 2019/1158, currently in force) is applicable in the present case. 
7 The mutual insurance company, which is also a defendant in the proceedings in 
which the worker is the applicant, opposes the latter’s claim, arguing that the basic 
amount was calculated based on the salary actually received, according to the 
wage certificate issued by the company. It submits that the different regime is not 
based on any condition or circumstance that could imply discrimination or 
disadvantageous treatment of female workers. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 According to the referring court, the Spanish legislation (Article 60(2) of the 
Decree of 22 June 1956) establishes that the basic amount of benefits for 
permanent invalidity resulting from an accident at work is determined based on 
the salary that the worker was receiving at the time of the accident, because it is 
calculated on the basis of the contribution base for the working day actually 
worked. That means that, if the right to reduce working hours to care for a child 
has been exercised, the salary to be taken into account is that corresponding to that 
reduced number of working hours, which in the present case meant a reduction of 
50% for the worker, with the consequent impact on the basic pension amount. 
9 The referring court cites the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2019 in 
Case C537/07 Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho (EU:C:2009: 462), in order, first, 
to state – referring in particular to paragraphs 60 to 62 of that judgment – that 
Directive 79/7 does not in any event require Member States to grant special social 
security benefits to persons who have taken care of their children, and second, to 
state that Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the 
revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by 
BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 
96/34/EC is not applicable in the present case. The referring court also considers 
that this is not a situation involving conversion from a full-time contract to a part-
time contract, so Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning 
the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and 
the ETUC does not apply. 
10 However, according to the referring court, the judgment cited in the previous 
paragraph did not go so far as to assess – because it was not argued – whether the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-584/23 
 
6  
relevant Spanish social security legislation might amount to indirect 
discrimination on grounds of sex. The statistical factor of the gender incidence of 
requests for reduced working hours for childcare was also not examined. 
11 According to the statistics provided by the Tesorería General de la Seguridad 
Social (General Social Security Treasury, ‘the TGSS’), 224 513 people were 
continuously in a situation of reduced working hours between 2020 and 2022 
under the provisions of Article 37(6) of the consolidated text of the Law on the 
Statute of Workers’ Right. Of those, 22 110 are male (9.85%) and 202 403 are 
female (90.15%). The referring court states that the question at issue is whether a 
rule that is apparently neutral as regards social security but which adversely 
affects women to a very large extent, given that it is mainly women who take 
advantage of the right to reduced working hours, might give rise to indirect 
discrimination on grounds of sex. 
12 Moreover, the referring court states that, in cases where a full-time contribution 
base is recognised artificially (a period which, at the time when the worker’s 
permanent invalidity was recognised, was the first two years of reduced working 
hours to care for a child and which, since Article 237(3) of the consolidated text of 
the General Social Security Law was amended by Royal Decree-Law 2/2023, is 
now three years), the cost of the difference between the pension calculated using a 
reduced base and that resulting from the (notional) base calculated at 100% (a cost 
borne by the social security management body) is legally considered to be a 
contributory public benefit and does not entail any cost for the companies 
concerned or for the cooperating mutual insurance companies. This is a further 
aspect that was not analysed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 
2019, Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho (C537/07, EU:C:2009:462). 
13 The referring court mentions the possibility that that benefit might be excluded 
from the scope of Directive 79/7 (Article 3(2)) because it is a family benefit. 
However, it states that, even if it is a family benefit, it is the risk covered by that 
directive that takes precedence, namely an accident at work. Thus, in its view, it is 
a contributory public benefit that covers a risk provided for in Directive 79/7. 
Although it is apparently neutral, as it is intended for all persons of both sexes, the 
statistical reality is that it overwhelmingly affects women negatively: the benefit is 
much lower – in the present case 50% lower – for women who have exercised 
their right to reduced working hours and who are entitled to a permanent 
invalidity pension due to an accident at work. 
14 In the light of the foregoing, the court considers it necessary to refer these 
questions for a preliminary ruling so it can rule on the case before it.