Case C-167/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne — United Kingdom) — C. D. v S. T. (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 92/85/EEC  — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding  — Article 8  — Commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement  — Refusal to grant her maternity leave  — Directive 2006/54/EC  — Equal treatment of male and female workers  — Article 14  — Less favourable treatment of a commissioning mother as regards the grant of maternity leave)
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, gender equality, maternity leave, social policy, surrogate mother








C_2014142EN.01000601.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/6





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne — United Kingdom) — C. D. v S. T.
(Case C-167/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 8 - Commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement - Refusal to grant her maternity leave - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of male and female workers - Article 14 - Less favourable treatment of a commissioning mother as regards the grant of maternity leave))
2014/C 142/06
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C. D.

Defendant: S. T.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal Newcastle upon Tyne — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 2(c), 8(1) and 11(2)(b) 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) — Interpretation of Articles 14 and 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) 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 (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Prohibition of any less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave within the meaning of Directive 92/85/EEC — Scope — Non-biological mother having recourse to surrogacy — Right to maternity leave.

Operative part of the judgment







1)


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) must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to provide maternity leave pursuant to Article 8 of that directive to a female worker who as a commissioning mother has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement, even in circumstances where she may breastfeed the baby following the birth or where she does breastfeed the baby;










2)


Article 14 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, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer’s refusal to provide maternity leave to a commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.