WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Equalization of pensions between men and women, Mr Farmer, Stanford-le-Hope, UK

In response to a complaint from my constituent, Mr Farmer of Stanford-le-Hope, who was forced to retire by P & O Distribution, Barking and Tilbury Depot when their pension scheme was equalized to take effect at 63 years for men and women, was it the Commission's intention and is it in compliance with the directive, that employees can be forced to retire earlier than previously applied? What remedies are available to Mr Farmer in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that Council Directive 96/97/EC ((OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. )), adopted on 20 December 1996, amended Directive 86/378/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.8.1986. )) to bring it into line with Article 119 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the Barber case and in subsequent related judgments. The Member States were required to take the necessary steps to comply with this Directive by 1 July 1997 at the latest. The Commission will ask all the Member States to supply information on the measures taken to implement this Directive and will not hesitate to initiate the proceedings provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty, if necessary.

The purpose of this Directive is to ensure equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes ((Equal treatment for men and women as regards retirement age under statutory schemes has not yet been introduced. Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979) allows for the maintenance of different retirement ages depending on sex. )). This may mean either the establishment of the same retirement age for men and women, or the introduction of a flexible retirement scheme with the same conditions for both sexes. The choice of the same age is a matter for the occupational scheme in question, in accordance with the rules and arrangements applying in the Member State concerned.

In its judgments in Cases C-408/92 (Smith) ((ECR 1994, I, p. 4435, judgment of 28.9.1994, case C-408/92 Smith. )) and C-28/53 (Van den Akker) ((ECR 1994, I, p. 4527, judgment of 28/9/1994, case C-28/93 Van den Akker. )), the Court specified the manner whereby employers or occupational schemes are to make the retirement age equal.

Basically, for periods of employment between 17 May 1990 and the date on which the rule imposing a uniform retirement age entered into force, Article 119 precludes the reintroduction of an equal situation other than by the application to all workers of the scheme which had previously been to the advantage of workers of only one sex.

However, for periods of employment subsequent to the date of entry into force of the equality measures, Article 119 does not prevent the retirement age of women being aligned with that of men or the adoption of a uniform retirement age for men and women.

As regards periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, Community law imposed no obligation which would justify retroactive reduction of the advantages which women or men enjoyed.

It should be noted, however, that the Commission is monitoring the development of national social protection systems in general very closely, in accordance with the Council Recommendations of 27 July 1992 concerning the convergence of social protection objectives and policies ((OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. )) and of 24 June 1992 on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems6. The national systems must be developed on the basis of common principles, according to the arrangements applying in each country, but allowing for their adaptation to changes in social protection requirements, particularly those resulting from developments in the labour market, changes in family structures and demographic trends.