Case C-303/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 23 July 2002 in the case of Peter Haackert against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
of 23 July 2002 in the case of Peter Haackert against
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

(Case C-303/02)

(2002/C 289/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Republic of Austria)
(Supreme Court) of 23 July 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Haackert against
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Salaried
Employees’ Pension Insurance Institution) on the following
question:

der Angestellten

‘Is the derogation contained in Article 7(1)(a) of Council
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) on the progress-
ive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women in matters of social security to be interpreted
as being applicable to a benefit such as the early old-age
pension in connection with unemployment in respect of which
different pensionable ages for men and for women are
determined in national law?’

( 1) OJ L 6 [1979], p. 24.

pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19,
hereinafter ‘Directive 75/117/EEC’) and Clause 2
of the Framework Agreement on part-time work
concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (herein-
after,
the ‘Framework Agreement on part-time
work’), which was implemented by Council Directive
97/81/EC (OJ 1997 L 14, p. 9), and Point 9 of the
the Fundamental Social
Community Charter of
Rights of Workers of 9 December 1989 to be
construed in such a way (concept of ‘worker’) that
constant protection is afforded even to persons such
in a
as the claimant in the present case who,
comprehensive framework agreement on employ-
ment, agree terms on pay, termination of employ-
ment and the like but also stipulate that the amount
and positioning of working time should be governed
by the workload and agreed by the parties in the
light of the individual circumstances of each case?

(b) Does the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of
Question 1(a) apply where there is a prospect of
work on approximately three days a week and two
Saturdays in each month without any binding
commitment?

(c) Does the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of
Question 1(a) apply where work is actually carried
out on approximately three days a week and two
Saturdays in each month?

(d)

Is the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social
Rights of Workers of 9 December 1989 legally
binding, at least in so far as reliance is placed on it
in the interpretation of other rules of Community
law?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) by order of that Court of
8 August 2002 in the case of Nicole Wippel against Peek
& Cloppenburg GmbH & Co KG

(Case C-313/02)

(2002/C 289/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of 8 August 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 5 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Nicole Wippel against Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH &
Co KG on the following questions:

1.

(a) Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 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

2. Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC (OJ L 039,
p. 14, hereinafter ‘Directive 76/207/EEC’) and Clause 4 of
the Framework Agreement on part-time work to be
construed as meaning that
it constitutes objectively
unjustified unequal treatment if,

in the case of full-time workers (approximately 60 % men
and 40 % women), provision is made by statute or
collective agreement for there to be rules not only on the
amount of working time but also (to some extent)
regarding its positioning, the observance of which a full-
time worker is entitled to demand even in the absence of
a contractual arrangement,

whereas there are no such rules for part-timers, the vast
majority of whom are women (approximately 90 %
women and 10 % men), even where the contracting
parties have not come, as required by statute, to a
contractual arrangement on this point?