Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2003 in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive 76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justification)
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law

C 112/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and R. Tricot): Application for
annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of
23 February 2000 determining in a particular case that an
application for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a
specified amount and that there is no justification for remission
of
(Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 March 2003, in which it:

import duties in a separate amount, the Court

ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Helga Kutz-Bauer and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, on the
interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(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 (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-
er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and
J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 determining in a particular case that an application
for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a specified
amount and that there is no justification for remission of import
duties in a separate amount in so far as it declares inadmissible
the amount of NLG 15 679 301,49 of the application for
remission of import duties submitted by Cargill BV and referred
to the Commission of the European Communities on 22 April
1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 20 March 2003

in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie
und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)

(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
cation)

1. Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC 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, must be
interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision of a
collective agreement applicable to the public service which allows
male and female employees to take advantage of a scheme of
part-time work for older employees where under that provision
the right to participate in the scheme of part-time work applies
only until the date on which the person concerned first becomes
eligible for a retirement pension at the full rate under the
statutory old-age insurance scheme and where the class of
persons eligible for such a pension at the age of 60 consists
almost exclusively of women whereas the class of persons
entitled to receive such a pension only from the age of
65 consists almost exclusively of men, unless that provision is
justified by objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on
grounds of sex.

2.

In the case of a breach of Directive 76/207 by legislative
provisions or by provisions of collective agreements introducing
discrimination contrary to that directive, the national courts are
required to set aside that discrimination, using all the means at
their disposal, and in particular by applying those provisions
for the benefit of the class placed at a disadvantage, and are not
required to request or await the setting aside of the provisions
by the legislature, by collective negotiation or otherwise.

(2003/C 112/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

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

In Case C-187/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary