Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2001 in Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank v Michel Hautem (Appeal — Members of the staff of the European Investment Bank — Dismissal — Interpretation of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank — Plea alleging mistaken characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error in the statement of reasons — Alleged infringement of the rules applicable to relations between the European Investment Bank and its staff)
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, appeal, damages, dismissal, regulations for civil servants

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/5

health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have
recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — the Court, composed
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October
2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October
1992, on the introduction of measures to encourage improve-
ments in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and
workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (10th
individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Directive 89/391/EEC), has direct affect and is to be interpreted
to the effect that, in the absence of transposition measures taken
by a Member State within the period prescribed by that
Directive, it confers on individuals rights on which they may
rely before a national court against the authorities of that State.

2.

In allowing derogations from the prohibition of dismissal of
pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or
workers who are breast feeding in cases ‘not connected with
their condition which are permitted under national legislation
and/or practice’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, does
not require the Member States to specify the particular grounds
on which such workers may be dismissed.

3. Whilst the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 10
of Directive 92/85/EEC applies to both employment contracts
for an indefinite period and fixed-term contracts, non-renewal
of such a contract, when it comes to an end as stipulated,
cannot be regarded as a dismissal prohibited by that provision.
However, where non-renewal of a fixed-term contract
is
it constitutes
motivated by the worker’s state of pregnancy,
direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1)
and 3(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment
for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions.

4.

In providing that the dismissal of a pregnant worker, of a
worker who has recently given birth or of a worker who is
breastfeeding may take place, in exceptional cases ‘and, where
applicable, provided that competent authority has given its
consent’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC is not to be
interpreted as imposing on Member States any obligation to
have a national authority, having found that there is an
exceptional case justifying the dismissal of a pregnant worker,
give its consent prior to the employer’s decision to dismiss the
worker.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 2 October 2001

in Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank v Michel
Hautem (1)

(Appeal — Members of the staff of the European Investment
Bank — Dismissal — Interpretation of the Staff Regulations
of the European Investment Bank — Plea alleging mistaken
characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error
in the statement of reasons — Alleged infringement of
the rules applicable to relations between the European
Investment Bank and its staff)

(2001/C 331/07)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank (Agent:
G. Marchegiani, assisted by G. Vandersanden) appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897,
seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party
to the proceedings being: Michel Hautem, a member of the
staff of the European Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler
(Luxembourg) (Avocats: M. Karp and J. Choucroun) — the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.

(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.