Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application — Difference in pay — Definition of "the same work" and "work of equal value" — Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof — Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a specific employee's work)
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, interpretation of the law, pay, socioprofessional category

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 21 June 2001

(Sixth Chamber)

of 26 June 2001

in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99
P: Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Appeal — Aid to the steel industry — Restructuring of the
iron and steel sector)

(2001/C 227/04)

(Language of the case: Italian)

in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v
Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (1)

(Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application
— Difference in pay — Definition of ‘the same work’ and
‘work of equal value’ — Classification, under a collective
agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof —
Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a
specific employee’s work)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(2001/C 227/05)

in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P,
Moccia Irme SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by
E. Capelli, P. de Caterini and A. Bandini, avvocati, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), represented by
C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati, and Ferriera
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecomprati (Italy),
represented by C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati,
appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 12 May 1999 in Case T-164/96 to
T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97 Moccia Irme and Others v
Commission [1999] ECR II-1477, seeking to have that judg-
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Pignatu-
ro, assisted by M. Moretto), Prolafer Srl, established in Bergamo
(Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,
and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore
(Italy) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June
2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Moccia Irme SpA, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Ferriera
Acciaieria Casilina SpA to bear their own costs and jointly and
severally to pay those incurred by the Commission in these
proceedings.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-381/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Susanna Brunnhofer and Bank der österreichischen Postspark-
asse AG — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC
Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) and of Council Directive
75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
the Chamber, V. Skouris,
C. Gulmann, President of
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in which
it has ruled:

The principle of equal pay for men and women 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) and elaborated
by Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application
of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted
as follows:

— a monthly salary supplement to which the employees concerned
are entitled under their individual employment contracts, paid

C 227/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay
within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and the
Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis of
an overall assessment of all
the consideration granted to
employees but also in the light of each aspect of pay taken in
isolation;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 28 June 2001

— the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim of
discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are
classified in the same job category under the collective agreement
for
governing their employment
concluding that the two employees concerned are performing
the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within
the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of
the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst
others that this criterion is met;

in itself sufficient

is not

— as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to
be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving
lower pay than paid by the employer to a colleague of the other
sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work
of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen
comparator; the employer may then not only dispute the fact
that the conditions for the application of the principle of equal
pay for men and women are met in the case but also put
forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination
based on sex, to justify the difference in pay;

— a difference in pay is capable of being justified by circumstances
not taken into consideration under the collective agreement
application to the employees concerned, provided that they
constitute objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination
based on sex and in conformity with the principle of pro-
portionality;

— in the case of work paid at time rates, a difference in pay
awarded, at the time of their appointment, to two employees of
different sex for the same job or work of equal value cannot be
justified by factors which become known only after the employees
concerned take up their duties and which can be assessed only
once the employment contract is being performed, such as a
difference in the individual work capacity of
the persons
concerned or in the effectiveness of the work of a specific
employee compared with that of a colleague.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut
national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
dants (Inasti) (1)

(Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 — Retire-
ment pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability
pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation
of effects — Serious breach of Community law)

(2001/C 227/06)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-118/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du travail
de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Gervais Larsy and Institut national d’assurances sociales pour
travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — on the interpretation of
Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
L 136, p. 7), and on the conditions governing a Member State’s
liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of
Community law — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; P. Léger; Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the Community
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, does not
apply to an application for review of a retirement pension, the
amount of which has been limited under an anti-overlapping
rule applicable in a Member State, on the ground that the
person receiving that pension has also been awarded a retirement
pension paid by the competent institution of another Member
State, where the application for review is based on provisions
other than those in Regulation No 1248/92.