Judgment of the court (Sixth Chamber) 18 March 2004 —In Case C-342/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de loSocial No 33 de Madrid): María Paz Merino Gómez v Continental Industrias delCaucho SA (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity leave— Worker whose period of maternity leave coincides with the period of annualleave for all staff agreed in a collective agreement on annual leave)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, gender equality, interpretation of the law, maternity leave, occupational safety, paid leave

C 106/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions relating to the application of review procedures to the
award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended
by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts, and in particular Articles 1(1) and 2(7) thereof, must
be construed as meaning that, in the case where a clause in an
invitation to tender is incompatible with Community rules on
public contracts, the national
legal systems of the Member
States must provide for the possibility of relying on that incom-
patibility in the review procedures referred to in Directive
89/665.

(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

18 March 2004

In Case C-342/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid): María Paz
Merino Gómez v Continental Industrias del Caucho SA (1)

(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
Maternity leave — Worker whose period of maternity leave
coincides with the period of annual leave for all staff agreed
in a collective agreement on annual leave)

(2004/C 106/05)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-342/01: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid (Spain) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between María Paz Merino Gómez and Continental Industrias
del Caucho SA, on the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council
Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain
aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p.
18), of Article 11(2)(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19

October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and 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)
and of Article 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 employ-
ment, vocational training and promotion, and working condi-
tions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40),
(Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
J. Mischo, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March
2004, in which it has ruled:

the Court

Judges;

1. Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November
1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working
time, of Article 11(2)(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19
October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements
in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breast-
feeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article
16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and of Article 5(1) of Council
Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementa-
tion of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
and working conditions are to be interpreted as meaning that a
worker must be able to take her annual
leave during a period
other than the period of her maternity leave, including in a case in
which the period of maternity leave coincides with the general
period of annual
leave fixed, by a collective agreement, for the
entire workforce.

2. Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 92/85 is to be interpreted as also
applying to the entitlement of a worker in circumstances such as
those of the case before the referring court to a longer period of
annual leave, provided for by national
law, than the minimum
laid down by Directive 93/104.

(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.