Case C-354/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 1, 2 and 6 — Equal treatment — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex — Occupational pension — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4.1 and 4.2 — Method for calculating acquired pension rights — Legislation of a Member State — Different treatment of part-time workers)
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, full-time employment, gender equality, part-time employment, pension scheme, seniority, sexual discrimination, social policy, social security legislation








C_2017293EN.01000902.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH
(Case C-354/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 1, 2 and 6 - Equal treatment - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex - Occupational pension - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4.1 and 4.2 - Method for calculating acquired pension rights - Legislation of a Member State - Different treatment of part-time workers))
(2017/C 293/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ute Kleinsteuber

Defendant: Mars GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended, and Article 4 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, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of an occupational pension, distinguishes between employment income falling below the ceiling for the calculation of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income above that ceiling, and which does not treat income from part-time employment by calculating first the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment, then determining the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling and finally applying that proportion to the reduced income from part-time employment.










2)


Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of the occupational pension of an employee who has accumulated full-time and part-time employment periods, determines a uniform rate of activity for the total duration of the employment relationship, in so far as that calculation method of the pension does not violate the pro rata temporis rule. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.










3)


Articles 1 and 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an occupational pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio between (i) the employee’s length of service and (ii) the length of the period between taking up employment in the undertaking and the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme, and in so doing applies a maximum limit of reckonable years of service.






(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.