Joined Cases C-63/91 and C-64/91 
Sonia Jackson and Patricia Cresswell 
v 
Chief Adjudication Officer 
(References for a preliminary ruling 
from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) 
(Equal treatment for men and women — Social security — 
Employment and vocational training — Low-income benefit) 
Report for the Hearing I - 4738 
Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 15 May 1992 I - 4748 
Judgment of the Court, 16 July 1992 1-4774 
Summary of the Judgment 
1. Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Matters 
covered by Directive 79/7 — Benefit paid to persons having insufficient means to meet their 
needs — Excluded — CUimant suffering from one of the risks listed in Article 3 — No effect 
(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 3(1)) 
2. Social policy — Male and female employees — Access to employment and working conditions 
— Equal treatment — Directive 76/207 — Scope — National system of social security benefits 
intended to provide additional income for persons having insufficient means to meet their 
needs — Excluded — Conditions governing the granting of benefits which might affect access 
to employment or vocational training — No effect 
(Council Directive 76/207) 
I - 4737 
REPORT FOR THE HEARING — JOINED CASES C-63/91 AND C-64/91 
1. Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the pro­
gressive implementation of the principle 
of equal treatment for men and women in 
matters of social security, which defines 
the matters covered by the directive, is to 
be interpreted as not referring to a statu­
tory scheme which, on certain conditions, 
provides persons with means below a 
legally defined limit with a special benefit 
designed to enable them to meet their 
needs. That interpretation is not affected 
by the circumstance that the claimant is 
suffering from one of the risks listed in 
Article 3 of the directive. 2. Directive 76/207 on the implementation 
of the principle of equal treatment for 
men and women as regards access to 
employment, vocational training and pro­
motion, and working conditions is to be 
interpreted as meaning that the fact that, 
under a social security scheme which, on 
certain conditions, provides persons with 
means below a legally defined limit with a 
special benefit designed to enable them to 
meet their needs, the conditions of enti­
tlement for receipt of the benefits may be 
such as to affect the ability of a single par­
ent to take up access to vocational train­
ing or part-time employment is not suffi­
cient to bring that scheme within its 
scope. 
REPORT FOR THE HEARING 
In Joined Cases C-63/91 and C-64/91 * 
I — Facts and written procedure 
1. In the United Kingdom, the Supplemen­
tary Benefits Act 1976 provided for the pay­
ment of a benefit to persons whose resources 
were insufficient to meet their requirements. 
Persons aged between 16 and pensionable 
age were entitled to claim a supplementary 
allowance the amount of which corre­
sponded to the insufficiency of their means 
compared with their needs. Persons over pensionable age were entitled to a supple­
mentary pension. 
Pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Supplemen­
tary Benefits (Resources) Regulations 1981, a 
lone father or mother was not subject to the 
requirement of registration and availability 
for employment which anybody wishing to 
claim supplementary allowance normally has 
to fulfil. 
* Language of the case: English. 
I - 4738