REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the application of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
Date: 2013-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: equal pay, equal treatment, gender equality, sexual discrimination, social security, working conditions













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0861 - EN











|



52013DC0861

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the application of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) /* COM/2013/0861 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Report on the application of Directive
2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the
implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of
men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
1.           Introduction
On 5 July 2006, the European Parliament and
the Council adopted Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle
of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of
employment and occupation (recast) (‘the Directive’)[1]. This Directive
consolidates and modernises the EU acquis in this area by merging
previous Directives[2]
and introducing some novel features. It is based on Article 157(3) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).
This report assesses Member States’
transposition of the Directive’s novel features and the effectiveness of its
application and enforcement[3].
It is without prejudice to any infringement procedures on the transposition of
the Directive.
The European Parliament has consistently
called for more action to enhance the application of the equal pay provisions
at European level and adopted resolutions to that effect in 2008[4] and 2012[5]. 
The
Commission's Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015[6] set out ways to
implement the principle of equal pay more effectively in practice and actions
to reduce the persistent gender pay gap. The Commission launched a study
assessing options to strengthen the application of this principle, such as
improving the implementation and enforcement of existing obligations and
measures aimed at enhancing the transparency of pay. 
This report includes a section that
assesses how equal pay provisions are applied in practice. In order to better
promote and facilitate the application of equal pay provisions in practice, this
report is accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document that consists of
four annexes: (1) a section on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification
systems; (2) a summary of equal pay case law of the Court of Justice of the
European Union ('CJEU'); (3) examples of the national case-law on equal pay;
and (4) a description of the factors that cause the gender pay gap, the Commission's
actions to tackle it and examples of national best practices.
2.           State of Transposition and Infringement Procedures
As a result of the Commission’s conformity
checks, questions were raised with 26 Member States on the conformity of their
national legislation with the Directive’s novelties[7]. In two Member States
the transposition is sufficiently clear and compliant that no further
information is required[8].

Some of the Directive’s elements come from
previous Directives, which have been repealed as a result of the recasting
exercise. Transposition of these older elements of the Directive was already
monitored as part of conformity checks on the previous Directives, most
recently Directive 2002/73/EC[9].
Initially, infringement proceedings on the basis of non-conformity with
Directive 2002/73/EC were launched in 2006 against 23 Member States. All these
proceedings apart from one[10]
have been closed, since the Member States have brought their national laws in
conformity with EU law. The remaining case concerns the obligation to
adequately protect the rights of employees on maternity, adoption or parental
leave when they return to work. It was referred to the CJEU on 24 January 2013[11].
3.           The Impact of the
Directive
Since the Directive mainly consolidates EU
law on equal treatment by bringing together, modernising and simplifying the
provisions in previous Directives and incorporating case law of the CJEU, the
obligation to transpose only applies to provisions that imply substantive
changes[12].
These novelties concern:
(1)                   
the definition of pay[13];
(2)                   
the express extension of the application of
equal treatment in occupational social security schemes to pension schemes for
particular categories of workers, such as public servants[14];
(3)                   
the express extension of the horizontal
provisions (i.e. on defence of rights, compensation or reparation and burden of
proof) to occupational social security schemes[15];
and
(4)                   
the express reference to discrimination arising
from gender reassignment[16].
In general, implementation in Member States
did not specifically focus on these novelties. Some Member States have
explicitly transposed the Directive either with new legislation or with
substantive amendments to existing legislation[17].
In two Member States, the Directive was transposed together with other
non-discrimination directives[18].
In two other Member States, transposition was considered necessary only in
relation to occupational social security schemes[19] and return from
maternity leave[20].

Transposition was not considered necessary
by some Member States because transposition of earlier directives was
sufficient to comply with the requirements of the present Directive[21].
3.1. Definition of pay
Article 2(1)(e) of the Directive defines
pay in the same terms as Article 157(2) TFEU, i.e. as ‘the ordinary basic or
minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind,
which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his/her
employment from his/her employer’. In most Member States, the concept of
pay is defined in national legislation and corresponds to this definition[22]. In others, the legal
definition of pay is not identical to that in the Directive, but the overall effect
appears to be the same[23]
or national courts interpret the term ‘pay’ in line with the case law of the
CJEU[24].
In some Member States, pay is not expressly
defined in national legislation[25].
For example, one Member State’s national legislation entitles women to equal
treatment in contractual terms (including but not limited to pay) with
appropriate male comparators[26].

3.2. Pension schemes for particular
categories of workers, such as public servants
Article 7(2) incorporates some
well-established CJEU case law and therefore clarifies that pension schemes for
particular categories of workers, such as public servants, have to be
considered as being occupational pension schemes and hence pay for the purpose
of Article 157(2) TFEU, even though they form part of a general statutory
scheme[27].
In the majority of Member States, this provision has been implemented either by
express provision or implicitly where the national legislation does not
distinguish between categories of workers[28].
In a significant number of Member States, transposition is lacking or unclear[29]. Of these: two Member
States seem to have a different pensionable age for men and women in both the
private and public sectors[30];
four Member States’ national legislation on occupational social security
schemes does not contain any provisions on equal treatment[31] and one Member State’s
provisions on equal treatment in occupational social security schemes do not
extend to public servants[32].

3.3. Extension of horizontal provisions
to occupational social security schemes
One of the Directive’s significant novelties
is the extension of the horizontal provisions in Title III to occupational
social security schemes[33].
The previous Directive on occupational social security schemes[34] did not expressly
provide for these provisions, which encompass the defence of rights[35], compensation or
reparation[36],
burden of proof[37],
equality bodies[38],
social dialogue[39]
and dialogue with non-governmental organisations[40]. Consolidating EU law
on equal treatment in the Directive presented an opportunity to explicitly
extend the application of these horizontal provisions to occupational social
security schemes. In the majority of Member States, the horizontal provisions
have been transposed into national legislation and apply to occupational social
security schemes[41].
In four Member States, this does not appear to be the case for all the
horizontal provisions in the Directive[42].
In one Member State it is unclear whether the equality body can act in the area
of occupational social security schemes[43].
In another Member State, once the legislation on occupational pension schemes
is in place, the anti-discrimination law framework, which incorporates the
horizontal provisions, will apply[44].
In two Member States, the legislation on occupational social security schemes
does not appear to contain any provisions on equal treatment[45]. In another Member State, where there are at present no occupational social security schemes, it is
unclear whether the national legislation containing the relevant horizontal
provisions would apply were such schemes to come into existence[46].
3.4. Gender reassignment
Recital 3 to the
Directive refers to CJEU case law, which provides that the principle of equal
treatment for men and women cannot be confined to the prohibition of
discrimination based on the fact that a person is of one sex or the other, and
that it also applies to discrimination arising from a person’s gender
reassignment[47].
Very few Member States have explicitly transposed this novelty[48]. Two Member States
included ‘sexual or gender identification’[49]
and "gender identity"[50]
in their grounds of discrimination. Two Member States' national legislation
already provided for grounds of discrimination to include ‘sexual identity’[51]. It seems that these
terms include, but are not limited to, gender reassignment. In one Member State the Equality Ombudsman has issued guidelines providing that the grounds of
discrimination cover all transgender people and not only those who have
undergone gender reassignment[52].
In four Member States, where there are no specific implementing measures,
national courts have interpreted domestic equal treatment legislation as prohibiting
discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment[53]. In three other Member
States, where again there are no specific implementing measures, reliance is
placed directly on the effect of CJEU case law in domestic law[54]. In several others,
where this novelty has not been specifically transposed and where there is no
pre-existing express reference in national equality legislation to prohibiting
discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, the existing prohibited
grounds of discrimination may be sufficiently non-exhaustive to cover discrimination
on grounds of gender reassignment. For example, in one Member State it is possible that discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment may be covered by
discrimination on grounds of ‘personal circumstances’[55]. However, most Member
States have not taken the opportunity presented by the Directive to clearly
include the right of people who are undergoing or who have undergone gender
reassignment to not be discriminated against in their national legislation. 
3.5. Overall assessment
Member States were only obliged to
transpose the Directive’s novelties. In general, they do not seem to have used
this opportunity to more comprehensively review their national systems to
simplify and modernise equal treatment legislation.
The Commission’s services are currently
asking detailed questions of 26 Member States concerning their transposition
and implementation. The issues under discussion should be resolved as a matter
of priority. The future challenge for all Member States will be to move from
correctly transposing the Directive into national law to ensuring full
application and enforcement of the rights established by the Directive in
practice.
4.           Application of the equal
pay provisions in practice
While the equal pay principle has been an
integral part of the Treaties since the Treaty of Rome and has since been
further developed in EU law and national laws of the Member States, problems
with effectively applying it in practice remain.
Article 4 of the Directive establishes the
principle of equal pay by providing that, for the same work or for work of
equal value, direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex is prohibited
in all aspects and conditions of remuneration. Where job classification systems
are used to determine pay, the Directive states that they must be based on the
same criteria for both men and women and drawn up to exclude any discrimination
on the grounds of sex.
Member States implement the equal pay
principle largely through equality legislation and labour codes. Several have
embedded the principle in their constitutional provisions[56]. A few have passed
laws specifically implementing the principle of equal pay[57] and some have
transposed the provision by way of collective labour agreements[58].
Most Member States’ legislation explicitly
prohibits pay discrimination[59].
However, despite the national legal frameworks prohibiting pay discrimination,
application of the equal pay principle in practice remains problematic. This is
illustrated by the persistent gender pay gap and the low number of pay
discrimination cases being brought before the national courts in most Member
States.
The gender pay gap currently stands at an
average of 16.2 % in the EU Member States[60].
Although estimates vary as to how much of the total gender pay gap arises from
pay discrimination as prohibited by Article 157 TFEU and Article 4 of the
Directive, it appears to be consensual that a considerable part of it can be
traced back to discriminatory practices[61].
While direct discrimination in relation to the exact same job appears to have reduced
in significance, there are substantial problems with evaluating work done
predominantly by women or men, particularly where this evaluation is carried
out in collective agreements.
The number of pay discrimination cases
referred to national courts is low or very low in most Member States, with only
few exceptions[62].
At the same time, when equal pay cases occur they are lengthy[63]. However, due to a lack of data and ineffective
monitoring in many Member States, no comprehensive information on court or
tribunal decisions on pay discrimination is available. This makes it
challenging to fully assess and quantify pay discrimination between men and
women[64].
The
scarcity of national case law on equal pay may indicate a lack of effective
access to justice for victims of gender pay discrimination. The effective application of the provisions on the equal pay
principle in practice may be hindered by three factors: (i) the lack of clarity
and legal certainty on the concept of work of equal value; (ii) the lack of
transparency in pay systems; and (iii) procedural obstacles. These three
obstacles are discussed below.
4.1.        Definition and application
of the ‘work of equal value’ concept and job evaluation systems used to determine
pay
There is no EU-level definition of work of
equal value or any clear assessment criteria for comparing different jobs. However,
the CJEU has clarified the concept of equal pay on several occasions[65]. A full overview of
the CJEU’s case law is provided in Annex 2 of the Staff Working Document.
Recital 9 of the Directive provides that, in accordance with CJEU case law, to
assess whether workers are performing the same work or work of equal value, it
should be determined whether they may be considered to be in a comparable
situation, by taking into account a range of factors including the nature of
work and training and working conditions.
Most Member States’ legislation does not
explain what should be understood as work of equal value, leaving it to the
interpretation of national courts. Twelve Member States[66] have introduced a
definition of this concept in their legislation, indicating an analytical
framework or the most important criteria for comparing the value of different
jobs. In most of these cases, the legislation lists skills, effort,
responsibility and working conditions as the main factors for assessing the
value of work. Including such a definition in national laws could be a major
asset for victims of pay discrimination, helping them to bring claims before
national courts. Several Member States without specific provisions like these
explained that the concept was developed by their national courts[67] or is provided in the
commentary[68]
or the preparatory work of legislation on equal pay[69].
One way of determining work of equal value
is by using gender neutral job evaluation and classification systems.
However, the Directive does not oblige Member States to put such systems in
place and their availability at national level varies significantly. While some
Member States’ legislation explicitly ensures that job evaluation and
classification systems used for determining pay are gender neutral[70], others do not have
this explicitly reflected in their legal provisions[71]. In a few Member
States, gender-neutral job evaluation is safeguarded by collective labour
agreements[72].
Practical instruments designed to assist in establishing gender-neutral job
evaluation and pay systems also vary by Member State. A few have established
guides and checklists for job evaluation and classification which makes it
possible to assess jobs in a more objective manner and avoid gender bias. These
specific tools are mostly issued by Member States’ gender equality bodies[73] or by national
authorities[74].
Several Member States have training programmes to assist employers in
implementing gender-neutral job classification systems[75].
Annex 1 of the Staff Working Document
accompanying this Report, on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems,
could contribute to better implementation of the equal pay principle in
practice.
4.2.        Transparency of pay
Increased transparency of wages can reveal
a gender bias and discrimination in the pay structures of an undertaking or an
industry and enable employees, employers or social partners to take appropriate
action to ensure implementation of the equal pay principle. In line with
Article 21(3) and (4) of the Directive, several Member States have put in place
specific wage transparency measures. These can be divided into measures that
disclose the pay of individual employees and measures that collectively
disclose pay information for categories of employees. While measures that
provide for individual disclosure of wages may help build individual cases and
have a preventive effect, collective disclosure of wages may be the basis for more
general measures to reduce the gender pay gap.
In cases of alleged pay discrimination, in
some Member States the employer is obliged to provide the employee with information
on pay, which helps to assess whether there has been discrimination[76]. In some Member States
this information can be obtained by the employee's representative, with the
consent of the employee[77].
If disclosure is refused, in some Member States it can be obtained via the
courts[78].
Regulations in some Member States include an obligation to indicate the legal
minimum wage when advertising jobs[79],
or make it unlawful for an employer to prevent employees from disclosing their
pay to others, where the purpose of such disclosure is to determine whether
there are links to differences in pay and to a protected characteristic such as
sex[80].
Several Member States’ equality bodies are entitled to request information on
pay[81],
for example information on income figures for comparable employees from the social
security institution[82].
However, information on pay is often considered confidential under national
data protection and privacy legislation. Therefore, in many Member States such
information cannot be released by employers. Employees may even be
contractually prohibited from informing other employees about their pay.
Disclosing pay information is usually more problematic in the private sector
than in the public sector.
As far as collective measures are
concerned, several Member States encourage the promotion of equality planning
by obliging employers to regularly assess pay practices and pay differences and
by drawing up an action plan for equal pay[83].
This obligation is usually placed on larger employers. Breaches of this
obligation may be subject to pecuniary sanctions[84]. Some Member States
also require employers to draw up pay surveys[85],
while others require employers to gather employment-related statistical data
based on gender[86].
In some Member States employers are obliged to periodically provide employees’
representatives with a written report on the gender equality situation in the undertaking,
including details of pay[87].

4.3.        Procedural obstacles in
equal pay cases
Victims of pay discrimination face certain
obstacles to accessing justice, including: lengthy and costly judicial
proceedings, time limits, lack of effective sanctions and sufficient
compensation, and limited access to the information necessary to make an equal
pay claim. 
Individual employees usually have limited
access to the information necessary to make a successful equal pay claim, such
as information about the pay of people who perform the same work or work of
equal value. This is an obstacle to the effective application of the shifting
of the burden of proof rule, provided in Article 19 of the Directive, which
requires the victim to first establish facts from which it can be presumed that
there has been discrimination. An employer is only then obliged to prove that
no discrimination took place. The application of the shift of the burden of
proof rule remains problematic in some Member States where there seems to be a
higher threshold than stipulated in the Directive to bring about the shift[88]. 
The costs of legal assistance and judicial
proceedings are usually high and place a burden on a victim. Also, the
compensation and reparation that can be obtained is often limited[89]. Therefore, the active
role of gender equality bodies and trade unions in providing independent
assistance to victims of discrimination would help them gain access to justice
and ensure the effectiveness of the legal framework on equal pay. It could also
reduce the litigation risk for individual employees and could be a possible
solution to remedy the significant scarcity of equal pay cases. Therefore, involving
gender equality bodies is instrumental for effectively applying the equal pay
principle. However, the tasks and powers of national gender equality bodies are
very diverse and it is only in some Member States that the role of equality
bodies includes representing individuals in such claims[90]. Representation of
individuals can be also exercised by trade unions[91] and NGOs.  
The Directive requires Member States to
take preventive measures related to breaches of the equal pay principle[92], again leaving the
choice of measures up to them. Prevention measures could include conducting
investigations that aim to prevent pay inequality, organising training for
stakeholders, and awareness-raising activities.
5.           Conclusions and way
forward
The Directive introduced several important
novelties that aim to make EU legislation in this area more coherent, to bring
it into line with CJEU case law and, ultimately, to make the law more effective
and accessible to practitioners and the general public.
With regard to the correct transposition of these
novelties into national law, the Commission’s services still have questions for
most Member States. These remaining issues will be clarified as a matter of
priority, if necessary through infringement proceedings. For the future, the
main challenge for all Member States is the correct application and enforcement
in practice of the rights in this Directive.
The practical application of equal pay
provisions in Member States seems to be one of the Directive’s most problematic
areas. This is illustrated by the persistent gender pay gap, which could be
caused in considerable part by pay discrimination and by the lack of challenges
by individuals in national courts.  
Member States should make use of the tools
provided in the attached Staff Working Document to increase the effectiveness
of the application of the equal pay principle and to tackle the persisting
gender pay gap. 
The
Commission will continue to comprehensively monitor the application of the
equal pay principle. In line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, in addition to
awareness-raising activities and dissemination of best practice, the Commission
will continue to put forward country-specific recommendations that address the
causes of the gender pay gap during the annual European Semester exercise. 
Moreover,
the Commission is planning for 2014 to adopt a non-legislative initiative
aiming to promote and facilitate effective application
of the principle of equal pay in practice and assist Member States in finding
the right approaches to reduce the persisting gender pay gap[93]. This initiative is
likely to focus on wage transparency.
[1]               OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23-36.
[2]               Council Directive 75/117/EEC, OJ L 45, 19.2.1975,
p. 19; Council Directive 76/207/EEC, OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40;
Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 269,
5.102001, p. 15; Council Directive 86/378/EEC, OJ L 225, 12.8.1986,
p. 40; Council Directive 96/97/EC, OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20; Council
Directive 97/80/EC, OJ L14, 20.1.1998, p. 6; Council Directive 98/52/EC,
OJ L 205, 22.7.1998, p. 66.
[3]               In line with Article 31 of the Directive.
[4]               P6_TA(2008)0544.
[5]               P7_TA-PROV(2012)0225.
[6]               COM(2010) 491.
[7]               These concerns were raised through the Commission’s
EU Pilot system, which is the process for exchanging administrative letters prior
to any infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU.
[8]               NL, FR.
[9]               OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 15. 
[10]             NL
[11]             The case concerns the non-compliance by NL law with
Article 2(7) of Directive 76/207/EEC as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC,
specifying that employees coming back from maternity, adoption or parental
leave are entitled to return to their job or to an equivalent post and to
benefit from any improvement in working conditions to which they would have
been entitled during their absence. NL legislation lacks the required express
provisions on this matter which casts doubt over the degree of protection
provided and makes it difficult for citizens to know and enforce their rights.
[12]             Article
33(3).
[13]             Article 2(1)(e).
[14]             Article 7(2).
[15]             Articles 17-19.
[16]             Recital 3.
[17]             CZ, DK, EE, EL, HR, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, SK, SE, UK. 
[18]             FR, PL. 
[19]             RO, where legislation on such schemes is pending.
[20]             BG.
[21]             BE, DE, IE, ES, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, FI. 
[22]             BE, BG, CZ, DK, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT,
PT, RO, SI, SK. 
[23]             EE, PL. In EE an employer’s activities are considered
discriminatory if it establishes conditions for remuneration or benefits that
are less favourable for an employee of one sex as compared with an employee of
the opposite sex doing the same work or work of equal value.
[24]             NL. See Cases 80/70, 43/75, 12/81, C-262/88, C-360/90,
C-200/91, C-400/93, C-281/97, C-366/99, available at http://curia.europa.eu/.
[25]             DE, IT, LV, AT, FI, SE, UK. 
[26]             UK.
[27]             Cases C-7/93 and C-351/00.
[28]             BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, IE, EL, FR, CY, LT, LU, NL, AT, FI, UK. In HU, legislation does not distinguish between categories of workers, but there
are no specific pension schemes for public servants.
[29]             DK, EL, ES, HR, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, SE. 
[30]             IT, SK.
[31]             LV, PL, PT, SE. 
[32]             RO.
[33]             Although these schemes were not expressly mentioned in
the horizontal rules, the CJEU’s clarification that an occupational pension
constitutes (deferred) pay implies that the pre-existing horizontal rules on
equal pay and on working conditions (including pay) also apply to these
schemes.
[34]             Council Directive 86/378/EEC.
[35]             Article 17.
[36]             Article 18.
[37]             Article 19.
[38]             Article 20.
[39]             Article 21.
[40]             Article 22.
[41]             BE, BG, CZ, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU,
MT, NL, AT, SE, UK (with doubts remaining for Northern Ireland).
[42]             DE, SI, SK, FI. 
[43]             DK
[44]             RO
[45]             PL, PT.
[46]             HR.
[47]             Cases C-13/94, C-117/01 and C-423/04.
[48]             BE (with what appears to be the exception of the Brussels region), CZ, EL, UK.
[49]             SK.
[50]             MT.
[51]             DE, HU. 
[52]             FI. 
[53]             DK, IE, ES, FR. 
[54]             CY, AT. In HR, the Gender Equality Act provides that
its provisions shall not be interpreted or implemented in contradiction with EU
law.
[55]             SI.
[56]             EL, ES, IT, HU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI. 
[57]             DK, EL, CY. 
[58]             BE, DK. 
[59]             Several Member States (e.g. BE, DE, PL, SE) do not have
such an explicit ban, but a general prohibition of sex discrimination also seems
to cover pay discrimination.
[60]             Eurostat
Online Database 2011, available at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdsc340.
[61]             See for instance Belgian
Presidency report 2010 ‘The gender pay gap in the Member States of the European
Union: quantitative and qualitative indicators’, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st16/st16516-ad02.en10.pdf.
[62]             E.g. IE, UK. In 2011, the UK impact assessment on
legislative measures to promote equal pay estimated that there were 28 000
equal pay claims annually in employment tribunals.
[63]             This includes UK. The Annual Tribunal Statistics
2011-2012 indicates the equal pay cases to be the slowest of all categories,
see http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/tribs-stats/ts-annual-stats-2011-12.pdf.
[64]             Several Member States lack specific statistics on the
number and types of pay discrimination cases.
[65]             See Cases 237/85, C-262/88, C-400/93, C-381/99. See
also Recital 9 of the Directive.
[66]             CZ, IE, FR, HR, CY, HU, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, UK. 
[67]             DK, DE, EL, ES, LV, AT.
[68]             AT.
[69]             FI.
[70]             E.g. EL, FR, IT, CY, LT, AT, SI. 
[71]             E.g. BE, DE, EE, IE, HR, LV, LU, HU, PL, FI. 
[72]             E.g. in BE.
[73]             E.g. BE, NL, PT, SE, UK. 
[74]             E.g. BE, EE, LU, AT. 
[75]             E.g. BE, EE, CY, SE. 
[76]             E.g. BG, EE, IE, SK, FI. 
[77]             E.g. FI.
[78]             E.g. CZ, LV.
[79]             E.g. AT.
[80]             E.g. UK. 
[81]             E.g. EE, SE. 
[82]             E.g. AT.
[83]             E.g. BE, ES, FR, FI, SE.
[84]             This is the case in FR.
[85]             E.g. FI. SE. 
[86]             E.g. DK, EE. 
[87]             E.g. BE, DK, FR, IT, LU, AT. 
[88]             E.g. CY, MT, BG. RO recently amended its legislation to
remove that problem.
[89]             In most cases compensation is equal to lost earnings
based on the wage difference between claimant and comparator. In some Member
States immaterial damage suffered is also included. The national legal
framework on sanctions differs significantly between Member States. 
[90]             E.g. BE, BG, EE, IE, IT, HU, MT, AT, SK, FI, SE, UK. 
[91]             E.g. in BE, DK, FR, SE, UK.
[92]             Article 26 of the Directive.
[93]       Commission Work Programme 2014, COM(2013) 739 final, available at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2014_annex_en.pdf.