ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM ( 83) 793 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0 275 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
C O M ( 83) 793 final 
Brussels, 6 January 1984
IN T E R IM  R E P O R T  O N  T H E  A PPLIC A TIO N  O F  DIRECTIV E 79/7/EEC 
O F  19 D E C E M B E R  1978 O N  T H E  PR O G R E SSIV E  IM P L E M E N T A T IO N  
O F  T H E  PRINCIPLE O F  E Q U A L  T R E A T M E N T  F O R  M E N  A N D  W O M E N  
IN  M A T T E R S  O F  SO C IA L S E C U R IT Y
C O M (83) 793 final

1.
IN T R O D U C T IO N
O n  19 December 1978,· the Council of t|ie European Communities 
adopted a Directive on the progressive implementation of the principle of 
equal treatment for m en  and w o m e n  in matters of social security. This 
Directive w as notified to the M em ber States on 22 December 1978.
Under Article 8 of the Directive/ the M em ber States are 
required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive within six years of its 
notification.
The aim of this Directive is to eliminate all discrimination/ 
whether direct or indirect, on grounds of sex in statutory schemes which 
provide protection against the risks of sickness, invalidity, old age, 
accidents at work, occupational diseases and unemployment.
In order to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and, where 
appropriate, facilitate the implementation of this Directive, the Commission 
has drawn up this report which illustrates the problems raised by the 
requirement to bring the laws of the M em ber States into line with the 
Directive.
This report has been drawn up mainly on the basis of the replies 
sent by the Governments of the M em ber States and by the m embers of*  the 
Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for W o m e n  and M e n  set up to assist 
the Commission of the European Communities by its Decision of 9 December 
1982 (1) (cf. attached sum m ary of these replies).
It should be noted that som e M em ber States did not wait until 
the end of the stipulated period to begin to am end their legislation.
Indeed, in som e countries this process is fairly advanced. However, there is 
also evidence of trends in the opposite direction, to a point which m ay  be 
described as a step backwards, in som e countries, as regards the principle 
of equal treatment (in Belgium and the Netherlands for example).'
T he Commission has monitored developments very closely. It has 
to ensure that, during the transitional period, measures are taken with a 
view to the progressive im p lamentation of the Directive and that any measure 
which is likely to jeopardize the principle of equal treatment is avoided.
This report forms part of this task.
The first part of the report is-devoted to problems connected 
with the application of the directive. The second part deals with a num ber of 
questions of interpretation, particularly as regards indirect discrimination 
and the problems posed by the substantive scope of the Directive.
(1) cf. O J  N o  L20, 28.1.1982, p. 35.

2.
I P R O B L E M S  C O N N E C T E D  W I T H  T H E  
A P P L IC A T IO N  O F  T H E  D IR E C T IV E
A  - N eed to observe time limits
In Com m unity Law , the Directive is a binding Legal instrument; it Lays 
dow n one or more specific objectives that the M em ber States m ust achieve within a  
certain period. Unlike the Regqlation, which is obligatory in all its elements and 
directly applicable in the M em ber States and 'from its date of application forms 
part of theip national law, the Directive leaves M em ber States to choose the form 
and the m eans most appropriate to their o w n  system to adapt their legal instruments 
to the requirements created by the Directive within a specified period.
The need to observe the time limit (22 December 1984) means 
that the necessary measures must be decided on in good time, where such 
measures have still, to be taken. The Commission would be entitled to initiate 
infringement proceedings against any M em ber State which had not complied 
with the Directive by that date.
B  - Progress achieved or in hand - Need for governments to carry out a 
systematic examination of alt their statutory schemes
The progress achieved with regard to the progressive implemen­
tation of Directive 79/7/EEC is considerable particularly in certain countries, 
as can be seen from the annex (1). The United Kingdom, for example, has 
adopted a comprehensive set of measures to this end. In other countries, 
the necessary measures have s till to be taken, possibly in addition to specific 
decisions taken since the adoption of the Directive. Finally, in other 
countries, the application of the Directive does not seem  to be presenting 
any major problems (Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, France, Italy).·
Whatever the extent of such progress, it is laid dow n in the text of the 
Directive itself (Articles 5  and 8) that M em ber States must take the measures 
necessary to ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
contrary to the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security 
are abolished.
It is therefore necessary for the M em ber States to carry out a 
systematic examination of alt their statutory schemes applying to the various 
categories of persons (employees, self employed, civil servants, etc .) 
which might be covered by the Directive. The examination must cover all 
aspects of the legislation :  scope of schemes, conditions of access, obligation 
to pay contributions, calculation of contributions, calculation of benefits,^ 
conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.’
Special attention must be paid to so-called social assistance benefits.
These are covered by the Directive in so far as they are intended to supplement 
or replace social security schemes.
(1) cf. A nnex containing the replies of the governments and the comments of 
the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities.

3.
C  - Need to take account in this examination of the opinion of the Advisory 
Committee on Equal Opportunities for W o m e n  and M e n
The Commission submitted the problems connected with the 
application of the Directive to the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities 
for W o m e n  and M e n  for its opinion CD. It endorses the following suggestions ,  
put forward by the Committee on specific points to ensure that the Directive 
is applied in an effective and coordinated w ay.
1. A s regards cash benefits
- where national figures or remunerations are applied for periods treated 
as periods of insurance/ such figures or remunerations should be the 
sam e for both sexes;
- where legislation provides for benefits calculated on the basis of a 
"household" rate for a couple both of w h o m  are insured, the right to 
such benefits must be granted to either spouse; in the case of old age 
pensions, they should not be granted on the basis of the age of one
spouse only.
2. The "social assistance benefits" are covered by the Directive where they 
replace or supplement insurance or social security benefits. The regulation 
in question should be reexamined in order to eliminate any discrimination.
3. W here the right to health care is granted not only to the insured person 
but also to his or her spouse, the conditions governing the exercise of 
this right must be the sam e for either spouse. M ore stringent conditions 
m ay  not be applied to the husband of a female insured person than to the 
wife of a male insured person either under national regulations or under 
Com m unity regulations on social security for migrant workers. T he 
Commission also points out that the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities 
emphasized that a number of problems had s till to be solved in som e countries 
(cf. annex). T he attention of the governments in question is drawn to
this fact.
D  - N eed to indicate w hen use is m ade of the authorized exceptions and w h y
The Directive, allows ,M e .m b e r States to provide for certain 
exceptions (Article 7). Those M em ber States wishing to m ake use of this right 
must inform the Commission, specifying the provision of Article 7 to which 
they are referring. It should be added that under Article 7(2) M em ber States 
must periodically examine all matters excluded under Article 7(D in order 
to ascertain, in the light of social developments, whether there is 
justification for maintaining the exclusions concerned and inform the 
Commission accordingly. The Commission, for its part, must ensure that no 
abuses occur. T he Court of Justice of the European Communities has consistently 
ruled t,hat (2) "the prohibition of discrimination is merely an enunciation 
of a general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles
(1) This opinion is given in full in the annex.
(2) cf„, for example, Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 :  1977 E C R  1753.

4.
of Com m unity law. This principle requires that similar situations shall 
not be treated differently unless differentiation is objectively justified".
Accordingly, the M em ber States must justify their recourse to 
Article 7.
Furthermore, the exclusions must be interpreted in a restrictive
w ay.
The Commission has had occasion to examine a case in which rules 
against the aggregation of a pension and a salary applied at different 
ages for m en  and w om en, whereas both received a pension at the sam e age C1).
The Commission feels that in such a case an exemption based on 
Article 7(D (a> is inadmissible since it concerns only the pensionable age 
itself. The principle of equal treatment therefore has to be applied, which 
m eans the absence of any discrimination particularly as regards the conditions 
for granting benefits and hence the conditions governing the possible 
aggregation of such benefits with an occupational income.
E  ~  Steps backwards not allowed
In the Commission's opinion, the adoption by the Council of this 
Directive, the aim  of which is the progressive implementation of the principle 
of equal treatment in social security matters* implies an acceptance by the 
M em ber States of an obligation not to adopt at national level, during the 
period granted to the M em ber States to incorporate the Directive into national 
law, any legislative measure which would give rise to new  instances of discri­
mination or worsen those already existing at the time of the adoption of the 
Directive. The Commission believes that Com m unity law obviously cannot 
lay dow n in a Directive an aim to be achieved at national level within 
a certain period of time and remain indifferent to national measures 
adopted during that period which by constituting a step backwards as /
compared with the situation existing at the time of adoption of the Directive 
would run counter to the aim to be achieved and be liable to jeopardize 
the achievement of the objective or one of~the objectives of the 
Directive.
The Commission is therefore taking care to ensure that during this 
transitional period no worsening of the situation occurs and will, if 
necessary, initiate infringement procedures against governments which have 
taken measures having such an effect.
(1) Answer to Written Question N o  192/83 by M r 6linne to the Commission, 
O J  N o  C  219, 16.8.1983, p. 9

5.
II P R O B L E M S  O F  IN T E R P R E T A T IO N
A  - Indirect discrimination
The problem
Article 4  of Directivé 79/7/EEC lays dow n that.there shall ja e  no 
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by 
reference in particular to marital or family status.
This text requires a number of points to be clarified : what is 
indirect discrimination ? T o what extent does reference to marital or 
family status constitute indirect discrimination ? W hat is meant by 
marital or family status? W hat other factors m ay constitute indirect 
discrimination ?  etc.
A  specific instance of this problem has arisen with regard to the 
Belgian regulations on unemployment insurance which apply the concept of 
"head of household" (1). Following a measure taken in Belgium to reduce/ 
after two years, the amount of benefit for unemployed persons w h o  are not 
heads of household, a complaint w as brought before the Commission based an a 
presumption of indirect discrimination. This w as claimed to arise from the 
fact that the head of household - in this case an insured m an  or w o m an  with 
a dependent spouse or with children dependent on him  or her alone - was, in 
95 %  of cases, a m an.
A  similar problem has arisen in the Netherlands, where the govern" 
ment has decided to allocate m inim um  unemployment or invalidity benefits 
to households with only one income. Here, too, it is found that, in most 
cases, only a m an can benefit in practice from this measure.
The problem arises in a m ore general w ay in all social security 
schemes (United K ingdom  and Ireland in particular) which provide for increases 
for dependent spouses. Although these increases are available to both m en  and 
w om en, they will in most cases be added to the benefits granted to m en.
The reason for this situation is always the sam e : the percentages 
of m en and w o m en  in employment are different. Practically all m en  have an 
occupation (except those w h o  are sick or unemployed), whereas m any w o m e n  
s till remain at home. F e w  w o m en  will therefore be able to claim that they
(1) Cf. point 2(a) below.i

6.
have a dependent spouse. If therefore an increase in benefits is granted 
for the dependent spouse# the beneficiary will in most cases be the man.
Guidelines
The Commission acknowledges that the problem is complex and 
controversial. Without claiming to have covered the whole ground# it has 
already had occasion to give its opinion on various points. It has also 
initiated a study comparing the concept of indirect discrimination under 
the national legal systems. Reference can also be made to the decisions 
of the Court of Justice and opinions of the Advisory Committee on Equal 
Opportunities.
Within these limits# however# certain findings may be taken as 
established and should be summarized here.
1. Notion of indirect discrimination
In its answer to a Parliamentary Question (1)# the Commission gave 
its position as follows on the notion of indirect discrimination in 
Directives on equal treatment. In the case in question# mention was made 
of indirect discrimination by reference to marital or family status.
~ The notion of indirect discrimination by reference to marital or 
family status has not been defined either at Community level or during the 
preparation of Directives 76/207 of 9 February 1976 and 78/7 of 19 December 1978
- In the Commission's report to the Council (doc. COM(80)832 final 
of 9 February 1981) on the application of Directive 76/207/EEC# several 
examples of what is considered to be indirect discrimination in the Member 
States are listed on pages 13 to 21.
- As far as the Commission is concerned t-his term should be inter­
preted as referring to-hidden discrimination which might in practice affect 
workers of one sex as a result of marital or family status being taken into 
account in determining the rights covered by the two Directives.
(1) Written Question No 2295/81 by Mrs Lizin to the Commission of the 
European Communities.

7.
The Commission's position amounts to a recognition that in 
practice indirect discrimination has the same "effect" as direct 
discrimination. The difference is that it is not based directly on sex.
It will therefore be necessary to establish that, since the effect is the 
same, the objective must be the same. However, need the effect be 
exactly the same ? Furthermore, is it sufficient to establish that the 
objective is the same ? Is it necessary to establish that discrimination 
was intended ?
An initial answer to these questions is provided by a judgement 
of the Court of Justice of 31 March 1981 in Case No 96/80 Jenkinq v 
Kingsgate. In the case in question, the Court rules that a difference 
in (hourly) pay between full-time workers and part-time workers does not 
amount to discrimination prohibited by Article 119 of the Treaty unless 
it is in reality merely an indirect way of reducing the pay of part-time 
workers on the ground that that group of workers is composed exclusively 
or predominantly of women.
In the grounds for its judgement, the Court points out, however, 
that a difference in pay of this type may be due to factors which are 
objectively justified and are unconnected with any intended discrimination. 
To judge whether or not discrimination exists, it will therefore be 
necessary to examine whether such factors exist, "having regard to the 
actual circumstances of the case, the atecedents and the motives of the 
employer".
It is therefore clear that, in this context and given the present 
state of the matter, the fact that a measure affects persons of one sex 
plays an important role, whether it affects them exclusively or simply 
predominantly. This "statistical" fact may even be decisive if there are 
no other factors constituting objective grounds for the measure. In this 
case, the result obtained accounts for the intended objective.
>
At this stage in its deliberations, the Commission therefore feels 
that indirect discrimination may be presumed where a measure which is 
apparently neutral in fact predominantly affects workers of one sex, without 
it being necessary to establish that discrimination was intended. On the 
contrary, it is for the person applying the measure presumed to be 
discriminatory to provide proof that it was objectively justified and did 
not involve any intention to discriminate.

8.
2. Reference to marital or famiEy status
It should be emphasized that the reference to marital status 
(which may include cohabiting where such a situation gives rise to 
equivalent legal effects) or family status is not in itself prohi­
bited by the Directives on equal treatment. This is clear from the 
existance of Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC, which concerns "increases 
due in respect of a spouse and for dependants" where reference to 
marital status in particular is explicit.
What is prohibited is that such reference should give rise to 
discrimination. It is in this context that the Commission has considered 
whether a problem of indirect discrimination arises in connection with *  
the notion of head of household and increases for dependent spouses.
These questions will be dealt with in turn.
a) The notion of head of household
The notion of head of household - or head of family - has 
practically disappeared in civil law. It sti'tl appears/ however/ in 
certain social security provisions. There are, furthermore/ related concepts 
such as the English "breadwinner" and the Dutch "kostwinner" - all of which 
imply that in reality/ in households where there is a married couple, one 
spouse is subordinate to (head of household) or financially dependent 
on (breadwinner) the other (1).
The Commission feels in this connection (2) that it isf impossible 
to find a neutral definition of head of household and that, consequently, 
this notion is incompatible with the principle of equal treatment and the 
abolition of discrimination.
The Commission feels that, in applying this principle, one should 
not regard one spouse as "head of household", which implies some sort of 
hierarchy between a married couple : the spouses must be placed on an 
equal footing.
(1) It should be noted that in law, the capacity of breadwinner can be 
defined in a way which is not discriminatory, i.e. where it is attributed 
to each spouse where they both contribute to the resources of the 
household.
(2) It has put forward this point of view to the
Belgian Government, whose unemployment insurance legislation maintains 
this notion.

9.
This is one of the reasons why Directive 79/7/EEC does not include 
the notion of head of household; it refers to spouses and dependants and 
authorizes, under long-term benefit schemes only, derogations with regard 
to the derived entitlements of a wife or dependent wife.
i
Furthermore, the concept of "head of household" is no longer in 
line with either the realities of society or the provisions of civil law.
b) Increases for dependent spouse
Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC lays down that there shall be no 
discrimination as concerns - among other things - increases due in respect 
of a spouse and for dependants. This provision has given rise to conflicting 
interpretations as to whether, by making a distinction between spouse and 
dependant, it prohibited increases for a dependent spouse.
In its original proposal, the Commission made an overall reference 
to dependants, without making a distinction between spouses and other 
persons. The present wording stems from a desire to cover not only the 
dependent spouse, but also a non-dependent spouse where he or she is 
entitled to an increase in benefits. The intention was certainly not to 
prohibit increases for dependent spouses, but to allow both the husband 
or the wife to claim such increases where their spouse was dependent.
In practice, however, the beneficiary of such increases will in 
most cases be a man, for the reasons already mentioned above, and such a 
fact is likely to give rise to a presumption of indirect discrimination, 
unless, as has been stated, there are objectively justified grounds not 
involving any intention to discriminate. Such grounds exist :  they stem 
from a desire to allow for the larger expenditure incurred by ^ household 
as compared with an individual in the absence of any other occupational 
income. One should still examine the extent to which such concern is 
justified. The Commission feels that such increases can be justified 
only in the case of social benefits guaranteeing a minimum income.
Increases, on the other hand, to benefits which are proportional to 
remuneration - remuneration which is not itself subject to increases in 
respect of dependent spouses - are regarded by the Commission as indirectly 
discriminatory within the terms of the Directive and should, in time, be 
restricted or abolished.

10.
3. Need to avoid the risk of indirect discrimination in social security 
provisions
The Commission shares the following opinion of the Advisory 
Committee on Equal Opportunities :
- steps should be taken to ensure that social security provisions 
which apply to part-time work do not constitute indirect discrimination in 
any way, in so far as they in fact relate predominantly to women;
- the conditions governing the grant of social benefits covered 
by the Directive must be capable of being fulfilled by workers of both 
sexes, regardless of their marital status;
- increases which exist under some national laws for dependent 
spouses should be checked to ascertain whether they in fact have a 
discriminatory effect, given that even where by law both spouses are 
entitled to such increases, the dependent spouse is in most cases the 
wife and, consequently, working married women will virtually never receive 
such increases.

11.
B - Substantive scope
It has been observed that the substantive scope of the Directive 
has been defined in a restrictive way.. By way of reminder, the Directive 
covers statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks of 
sickness, invalidity, old age, accidents at work and occupational diseases, 
and unemployment. Social assistance benefits are also covered in so far 
as they are intended to supplement or replace social security benefits.
Neither survivors* benefits nor family benefits are covered by the 
Directive (except in the case of family benefits granted by way of increases 
due in respect of the risks covered by the Directive).
Nevertheless, problems of interpretation have arisen within the 
scope thus defined.
1. In the case of accidents at work and occupational diseases, the question 
arises as to whether, in the event of death resulting from such accidents 
or diseases, the survivors' benefits are covered by the Directive.
To answer this question, it should first of all be borne in mind that the 
Directive covers accidents at work and occupational diseases without 
excluding death.
Secondly, in those Member States which have a special scheme for occupational 
risks, the rules applicable differ significantly from pension insurance sche­
mes in general : both the widower and widow are entitled to the pension fol­
lowing death given that this type of payment is intended to compensate 
 for the loss incurred. Under the survivors’  pension scheme, however, 
it is in most cases the widow who receives the benefit. The Commission 
therefore feels that pensions for accidents at work and occupational 
diseases resulting in death come under Directive 79/7/EEC.
2. The case of the‘‘ invalidity care allowance". In the United Kingdom there 
is a benefit known as the invalidity care allowance which is paid to 
persons looking after an invalid.
This benefit is more or less unknown in the other Member States. Some 
systems do, however, have a special allowance or increase actually paid 
to the invalid for assistance by another person.
Does the United Kingdom benefit fall within the scope of the Directive ?
The first thing to take into consideration is that the Directive applies  
only to the working population the person in question would therefore 
have to be part of that population.
The person must then have incurred one of the risks covered. In the case 
in question, there is a risk of invalidity but it is incurred by someone 
other than the potential recipient of the"invalidity care allowance".

1 2.
The Commission feels* however* that having regard to forms of 
compensation which* under schemes in other countries* have the 
same effect as the United Kingdom allowance* atbeit through an 
increase in the benefit paid to the invalids themselves, it would 
be desirable, from the point of view of the harmonization of the 
implementation of equal treatment* not to exclude the benefit in 
question from the scope of the Directive* at least where the recipient 
is a member of the working population.

REPLIES OF MEMBER STATESAnnex 1
BELGIUM
In 1980, Belgium adopted three measures with a view to 
implementing the Directive. The main aim of these 
measures is to bring to an end discrimination
regarding the concept·  of dependency in the fields of 
invalidity and sickness (in particular, health care).
Belgium expects further measures to be necessary in 
order to ensure equal treatment for men and women in 
matters of social secxirity - no information has 
yet been received about any such measures.
The 1980 measures bring about the following changes:-
1. A decree of the 23rd of January introduces a new
wider definition of a worker with a dependant to 
include women with dependent husbands.
2. A decree of the 16th of May recognizes the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as 
far as dependants in the health care (compulsory 
health insurance) scheme are concerned. It amends a 
decree of the 4th of November 1963 in the
following ways:-
i). A husband may be a dependant just as a wife
may bo.
ii). A person who stays at home and is responsible
for the housework may be male or female. Where 
a child (aged over 1 4)  is so responsible, such a 
child may be of either sex.
iii). Where the father and mother do not live together,
any children are the dependants of the parent 
who looks after them.
3. A decree of the 30th of June concerning health
care and invalidity amends a decree of the 24th of 
December 1974 so that a person who stays at home
and is responsible for the housework may be male
or female.

-  2 “
DENMARK
Denmark considers that Danish legislation, as it stands, 
complies with the Directive and she provides a list 
of recent (  viz., 1974 - 1980 )  legislation, which has 
brought this about(l).
Where any form of discrimination still exi'sts, Denmark 
believes that it is covered by the exclusions as 
provided for in the Directive(2).
(1). a). Law concerning daily allowances in case of
illness or confinement (see law no . 66 of the 
21st of February 1978).
b) .  Law concerning national sickness insurance (see
law no.94 of the 9th of March 1976).
c) .  Law concerning hospitals (see law no.324 of the
19th of June 1974)·
d) .  Law concerning invalidity pensions (see law no.
677 of the 15th of December 19 7).
e) .  Law concerning old age pensions (see law no . 676
of the 15th of December 1978).
f) .  Law concerning insurance against accidents at
work (see law no.79 of "the 8th of March 1978).
g) .  Law concerning child allowances and other family
allowances (see law no .609 of the 29th of 
November 19?o).
h) .  Lav; concerning social assistance (see law no.333
of the 27th of June 1980).
1). Lav; concerning (supplementary)  pensions for employees 
(see lav; ro.203 of the 3rd of May 1978). 
j). Law concerning placements and unemployment insurance
(see law no . 373of the 15th ofAugust 1980).

- 3-
(2). a). Concerning old "go pensions and invalidity
pensions - non-Danish women who -re married or 
were lately married to Danes have the same 
rights to these pensions as Danish women -
covered by art.7i para.l(c). 
h). Concerning the granting of a wife's allowance 
to the holder of an old age or invalidity 
pension - the wife, who is aged between 62 and 
67 years old, is not herself the holder of a 
pension — covered by art«7i para· (c/·
c) .  Concerning the right of "single" women to an
old age pension at the age of 62 - covered 
by art.7, para.1(a).
d) .  Concerning widows eligible to invalidity
pensions - they may sometimes use the period of 
residence of their deceased husband as the basis 
for calculation- covered by art.7·
e) .  Concerning the existence of widows' pensions
there are no corresponding widowers' '  pensions - 
covered by art.3(2).
f) .  Concerning social assistance - non-Danish women who
are or who have been married to a Danish 
national have the same rights as the latter to 
social assistance in the form of regular 
maintenance payments - falls outside of the 
Directive.

- 4 -
PRANCE
France considers that no measures are necessary in order for her to 
comply with the Directive.
She takes advantage of the exclusions possible under art. 7»l(a)  & (b).
LUXEMBOURG
On the 6th March, 1981,  Luxembourg wrote that the* Directive had been 
submitted to the Committee on Women's Labour, Social Security Section, 
so that the latter might propose measures in order to secure the 
implementation of the said Directive.
No information has been received about any such proposals.
GERMANY
On the 12th of February, 1 9 81, Germany wrote that she intends to 
look at the relevant German legislation to see if any reforms are 
necessary.
No information has yet been received about any such reforms.

- 5 -
IRELAND
There were several points on which Irish legislation did not 
comply with the Directive, when it was being negotiated. Of 
these points, some have been dealt with ,  totally (1), some have 
been dealt with partially (2) and some have yet to be dealt 
with (3).
(1) .  Different rates of Social Security contributions - this
was contrary to art.4.1 - since April 1979 1 contributions
have been assessed on a percentage basis up to a 
certain ceiling, with the same percentage rates and 
ceiling applying to mon and women.
at
(2) .  a). Duration cf payment of unemployment benefit - for
most married women payment was made over a shorter
period of time - this was contrary to art.4.1. In
April 1979» the maximum limit for dependent women was
extended from 156 days to 312 days. The maximum 
limit is generally 390 days, so discrimination
against married women remains.
b). Area of eligibility for unemployment assistance - in 
October 197^, the restriction on the eligibility of 
single women and wido'ws was removed. The restriction 
on the eligibility of married women remains - this
is contrary to art.4.1.
(3) ·  a). Lower rates of payment -■ in the case of flat rate
disability and unemployment benefits most married 
women receive less than other beneficiaries - this
is contrary to art.4.1.
b). Increases in benefit::, for dependants - in the social
insurance system, the conditions on which these may
1be paid are different for men and women - this is
contrary to art.4.1.

o
°)· Increases in benefits for dependants - in the social
assistance schemes, the conditions on which these may
he paid are different for men and women — this is
contrary to art.4.1.
The Irish Government decided to set up a working party to examine
the concept of dependency and the problems that would arise in 
applying the principle of equal treatment to men and women in
social security. This working party has reported back to the Irish
uovernment and the latter is to decide upon further legislation
in the light of this report. No information has yet been 
received about any proposed legislation.

- 7 ~
ITALY
Italy considers that the law of the Jth of December, 1977» 
(no.903) anticipated the Directive by abolishing discrimination 
in this field. Indeed the law goes further than the 
Directive requires t by abolishing discrimination in matters 
such as family allowances and widow's pensions and by moving 
towards a common retirement age.
The Italian Ministry of Labour ha3 contacted other Ministries 
and relevant organizations because, the field of application 
being so large, not everything falls within the ambit of the 
Ministry of Labour. Further information will be sent an soon 
as possible.
The changes that the lav; has made are as^ follows:-
1. Article 4?
'Jo men normally retire five years earlier than men which 
means that they have not made the forty years of 
contributions which are necessary for them to have full 
pension righto. Under this article, women nov; have the 
option to work until the same age as men in order to 
obtain the same pension rights. Moreover, private companies 
'  cannot compulsorily retire women before they have 
obtained these necessary rights.
2. Article 1:
Under this article men are given the same rights a3 
women regarding new born children, viz., men can leave work 
for a maximum of six months during -the first year of a 
child's life, provided that the mother of the child has 
>  not claimed this right or that the father has the sole 
responsibility for the child. During the six months, a 
daily allowance is paid. This is equivalent to 30;^ of the 
parent's wages; the criteria for receiving the same may be 
compared with those applicable in cases of sickness.
This article covers all workers in the public and private 
sectors, apprentices and members of co-operative societies.
It does not apply to those who work at home or to 
domestic servants.

-  8
3· Article 9:
Under this article, both the father and mother have
the right to claim and to obtain family allowances 
and increases of benefits. The same rights exist and 
the same limits apply to women and to those in 
receipt of a pension as to men.
If both the father and the mother claim in respect 
of a child, the allowance will be given to the 
parent who has the care of the child.
4« Article 10:
Under this article, men and women who work in 
agriculture now enjoy the same rights as regards 
protection against the risk of accidents at work.
5· Article 11:
Under this article, men and women now enjoy the same
rights to a pension, e.g., invalidity, old age, 
survivor’s,(cf. art.12 infra).
It applies to employees, the self-employed and the 
liberal professions alike.
6. Article 12;
Under this article men and women now enjoy the same
rights to benefits for such things as accidents at 
work and professional illnesses (cf. art.11 supra).

- '  9 -
NETHERLANDS
There were three points on which Dutch legislation did not 
comply with the Directive, when it was introduced.
1) .  Invalidity pension (.i\W) - married women were not covered
by the scheme - this was contrary to art.4.1.  Legislation 
in 1978 was destined to end this discrimination by 
20th December 1979 - every man and woman, single and
married, may claim invalidity pension in his or her own
name. Both husband and wife may claim for dependent 
children.
2) .  Old age pension (AOL') - a married couple may only claim
a pension if the husband (who is considered as the
pi
breadwinner) is 6 5,  even if his wife is older than he is
this is contrary to art.4.1. In order to end this 
discrimination there was a consultative period which ended
on 1st January 1981.  On 17th July 1981,  a proposal was 
submitted to the Economic and Social Committee.
3) .  Unemployment - there ar= at present three different scheme
(80)i, 75;J,  Supplementary Benefit). These schemes are to be 
amalgamated and the opportunity will Be taken to end all
discriminatory provisions (  e.g., under the Jupplementary 
Benefit scheme, the husband .is considered as the breadwinne 
even if he is not whereas the wife has to prove that 
she is the bread-winner ). As yet, no timetable has been
announced for this.

-  10  -
UNITED KINGDOM
The United Kingdom believes that the Social Security Act, 1980 and 
the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order, 1980 will ensure equal 
treatment for men and women in matters of social security before
the end of the implementation period.
The changes that this recent legislation has made or will make
are as follows:-
1). A two-stage implementation of the Directive, as far as a 
married woman, residing with her husband, who is claiming an 
increase in benefit (national insurance or industrial injuries)
in respect of her children, is concerned.
i). The replacement of the condition that the husband must be
incapable of self-support by the condition that the
husband's weekly earnings, if any, should not exceed the
amount of the increase.
It is intended to introduce this provision in November 1983.
ii). The latter mentioned condition will cease to have effect 
altogether, thus either the husband or the wife will be
able to make a claim irrespective of their spouse's
earnings.
It is intended to introduce this change in November 1 9 8 4.
2). Concerning a married woman's claim for an increase in benefit
for her husband.*-
i). The replacement of the condition that the husband must be 
incapable of self-support by the condition that the
husband's weekly earnings, if any, should not exceed the
amount of the increase.
Thus, as regards unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and 
maternity allowance, an increase for a dependent spouse will
be available to a husband or to a wife on the same 
conditions.
It is intended to introduce this provision in November 1983·

-  11 -
ii). Despite art,7«l(d) of the Directive, an increase in a
wife’s invalidity pension for her husband will depend 
on the rule that the husband's earnings do not
exceed the amount of the increase claimed. Thus, this
goes further than the Directive, but it does not
ensure (fully) equal rights for husband and wife, for 
it does not provide for a "tapered earnings rule".
It is intended to introduce this change in
November 1903.i
3) .  Although the United Kingdom believes that tjie following
change is not necessary under the'' Directive, she has
decided to abolish increases for certain prescribed 
relatives (usually daughters at university or female 
relatives acting as unpaid housekeepers, of which there
are only about 200 cases at any one time), for which
there were different qualification conditions according 
to the sex of the dependant.
In November 1981, the provision governing these increases 
was abolished as far as any new cases were concerned.
Increases being paid before the abolition of the 
provision should be phased out by November 1983·
4) .  A beneficiary of either sex can already claim an
increase in benefit in respect of a female child carer
(provided the beneficially ■  is entitled to a dependency 
increase in respect of the child).
The United Kingdom intends to go further than the 
requirements of the Directive, by allowing an increase 
to be paid whatever the sex of the child carer, except
that where a child carer is a man, it will only be
paid in those cases where it would be paid for a
husband. The earnings test applicable to a husband will
also apply to a male child carer.
The date of the coming into force of this provision 
has yet to be announced.
1

-12  “
5) .  At present, increases in benefit for adult dependants,
claimed by beneficiaries who are over pensionable age, 
may only be paid if the latter satisfy the 
conditions for entitlement to a retirement pension. 
Under regulations yet to be announced, increases in 
benefit will be paid at the same percentage rate as 
applies for increases in the retirement pension.
The date of the coming into force of these 
regulations has also to be announced.
6) .  The industrial injuries scheme will be extended so
that those provisions which already apply to a 
husband’s claim for an increase in respect of his 
wife, will also apply to a wife’s claim in respect 
of her husband. In each case it will have to be 
shown that the spouses are either residing together, 
or that the claimant is contributing at least the 
amount of the increase to the maintenance of 
his/her spouse.
The present condition that the husband must be 
incapable of self-support will be replaced by an 
earnings test.
It is intended to introduce this change in 
November 1983.
7) ·  The definition of "incapable of self-support", no
longer being required for dependency benefit purposes, 
will be deleted from Schedule 20 of the Social 
Security Act,1975 and from Schedule 17 of the Social 
Security (Northern Ireland) Act,1975·
8) .  Under the present supplementary benefit (social
assistance) scheme, the requirements and resources of a 
married or unmarried couple are aggregated, but only 
the man may claim and receive benefit on behalf of 
the family.
The scheme will be changed to provide that either one 
of a couple may claim, subject to certain conditions 
being satisfied.
It is intended tp introduce this change in November 
1983.

- 13 _
GIBRALTAR
(Gibraltarians benefit from the free movement provisions of the 
Treaties, despite the colonial status of Gibraltar. See the 
United "  Kingdom Declaration on the Definition of the Term 
"Nationals".) 
It was thought that there were two points on which Gibraltar 
was not fully in compliance with the Directive. Both these 
points will be dealt with by January 1985.
1. Women’s contributions are lower than men's - this is contrary 
to art.4.1 - since 1980 the contributions for both men and
women have been increased annually by the «same flat amount, 
and not by percentages as in the past - the remaining 
difference in contributions will be eliminated by January 1985.
2. Women's right not to pay contributions - this is contrary to 
art.4.1 - as from January 1985,  this right will no longer
exist - the right will however continue to exist, as provided 
for in art.7.1(e), for those women who have already chosen 
to exercise this right.
On one further point, Gibraltar goes further than the Directive 
requires. From January 1st 1985,  a. man will qualify for an old 
age pension by virtue of his wife's contributions. Thus, Gibraltar 
does not take advantage of art.7«l(c).

Annex 2
Examinations of the replies from the members of the Committee 
concerning the gradual implementation of the principle of equal treatment 
in matters of social security (statutory schemes)
The application of Directive 79/7/7/EEC does not appear to 
give rise to problems under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, 
Denmark, Italy, Luxemburg and, in all probability, France (no reply' received).
The reply from the Federal Republic refers, however, to the need 
to change the tables of certain imputed incomes (especially for periods 
treated as periods of insurance).
The Danish reply indicates that the government's attention has 
been drawn to certain situations in the field of pensions involving the 
problem of indirect discrimination (no further given).
In other countries, however, there are still problems to be over­
come.
BELGIUM
f
Problems have been identified in connection with unemployment, 
pensions, maternity leave and part-time work.
yDSE!BÌ2ZÌD§DÌ ~ a more favourable regime is applied to unemployed 
persons who are heads of households, whether male or female. However, only 
5% of unemployed females are heads of households, whereas the figure for 
unemployed males is 39%; there is, therefore, a possibility of indirect 
discrimination.
Pensions - apart from the difference in ages, discrimination is 
apparent in the methods of calculation (the "household" rate is available 
only to male married workers) and the minimum amounts of pension.
»
E3iì§£QÌÌZ_i§ave - unemployed women suffer a reduction in the 
maternity leave allowance.
Part—tlme_work - access to social security has been improved 
in the case of part-time work :  however, 90% of those concerned are women.

-  2 -
NETHERLANDS
From the reply, the changes in legislation give rise to considerable 
reservations insofar as the concept of "head of household" (kostwinner) has 
not been totally eliminated. The result is that the financial independence 
of a married female worker will not be guaranteed in the same way as a mar­
ried male worker. In this respect, a problem of interpretation of the 
Directive arises with regard to the concept of indirect discrimination in 
the case of increases for a dependent spouse. According to the reply, such 
increases should be eliminated except in the strictly limited case referred 
to in Article 7, (d) of the Directive.
The reply also raises the problem of adapting public assistance 
legislation.
UNITED KINGDOM
The measures adopted by the government relate mainly to benefits 
for dependents (including spouses) where equal treatment would be guaranteed. 
In some cases, these measures even go beyond the scope of the Directive.
In other cases, however, implementing provisions have still to 
be adopted: increases for an adult dependent on a pensioner and supplemen­
tary benefits (in the latter case there is the possibility of indirect 
discrimination if one of the conditions laid down can only be fulfilled by 
males).
Finally, no measures have been notified with regard to:
- supplementary pensions (the age of the husband determines entitlement);
- the family income supplement (there has to be at least one full-time 
income: that of the Tiusband)·; :  '
free care during visits to other Community countries (the husband may 
obtain this for his dependent wife but a wife can do so for her depen­
dent husband only in a case of infirmity;
- other benefits considered to be excluded from the Directive.

Advisory Committee on 
Equal Opportunities 
for Women and Men Annex 3
Progressive implementation of the principle of 
equal treatment for men and women in matters 
of social security (statutory schemes)
OPINION
Having considered a number of questions raised by the implementation 
of Directive 79/7/EEC on equal treatment for men and women in matters of 
social security (statutory schemes) and pleased, moreover, by the steps 
taken by the Commission to ensure the application in practice of equal 
treatment in this sphere (legal instruments to supplement Directive 79/7/EEC, 
the establishment of a network of experts to monitor the implementation of 
Community legislation etc), the Committee issued the following opinion :
1. With regard to cash benefits the Committee considers that :
- where imputed values or incomes are laid down for periods treated as 
insurance periods, these values or incomes should not differ according, 
to sex;
- where legislation provides for benefits calculated on a "household" 
rate, for a couple both of whom are insured, these should be available 
to either one or the other spouse; old-age pensions should not be 
granted on the basis of the ago of only one of the spouses.
2. Supplementary benefits are covered by the Directive where they replace 
or supplement insurance or social security benefits. The legislation 
in question should be reviewed to eliminate all discrimination.
3. Where the right to health care is granted not only to the insured person 
but also to the spouse, the conditions for exercising this right must be 
the same for both spouses; it is not therefore possible to lay down more 
stringent conditions for the husband of a female insured person than for 
the wife of a male insured per.son either under national rules or Community 
regulations on migrant workers.
4. With regard to indirect discrimination, the Committee takes the view that :
care should be taken that the provisions of social security legislation 
relating to part-time work do not have any indirect discriminatory effect 
insofar as these provisions in fact mainly concern women;
the conditions Laid down for the granting of social benefits covered 
by the Directive must be capable of being fulfilled by workers of either 
sex regardless of their material status;

-  2 -
- it is necessary to check whether increases granted for dependent spouses 
under the laws of some Member States do not in practice have a discri­
minatory effect since, even where these increases are available by law 
to either spouse, the dependent spouse will in most cases be the wife 
and consequently married female workers will hardly ever receive these 
increases.
In this connection, certain members of the Committee pointed out 
that, generally speaking, these increases were to be regarded as indirect 
discrimination based on marital or family status. However, the whole 
Committee reserved its position on this subject pending a more detailed 
study of the concept of indirect discrimination as envisaged in the new 
Community action programme on the promotion of equal opportunities for 
women 1982-85.