Case C-274/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien — Austria) — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Less favourable treatment of part-time workers in relation to full-time workers as regards their conditions of employment — Prohibition — National legislation fixing a maximum duration of fixed-term employment that is longer for part-time workers than for full-time workers — Principle of pro rata temporis — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Article 2(1)(b) — Concept of indirect discrimination on the ground of sex — Article 14(1)(c) — Employment and working conditions — Article 19 — Burden of proof)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, framework agreement, full-time employment, gender equality, part-time employment, proof, sexual discrimination, statistics, temporary employment, working conditions








C_2019413EN.01001401.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/14






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien — Austria) — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien
(Case C-274/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Less favourable treatment of part-time workers in relation to full-time workers as regards their conditions of employment - Prohibition - National legislation fixing a maximum duration of fixed-term employment that is longer for part-time workers than for full-time workers - Principle of pro rata temporis - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Article 2(1)(b) - Concept of indirect discrimination on the ground of sex - Article 14(1)(c) - Employment and working conditions - Article 19 - Burden of proof)
(2019/C 413/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan

Defendant: Medizinische Universität Wien

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is 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 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as regards fixed-term workers covered by that legislation, a maximum duration of employment relationships that is longer for part-time workers than for comparable full-time workers, unless such a difference in treatment is justified on objective grounds and is proportionate to those grounds, which is for the referring court to determine. Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of pro rata temporis referred to therein does not apply to such legislation.










2.


Article 2(1)(b) 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 precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as regards fixed-term workers covered by that legislation, a maximum duration of employment relationships that is longer for part-time workers than for comparable full-time workers, if it is established that that legislation adversely affects a significantly higher percentage of women in the workforce than men in the workforce, and if that legislation is not objectively justified by a legitimate aim or the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary. Article 19(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not require the party who considers himself wronged by such discrimination to submit, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, specific statistics or specific facts regarding workers affected by the national legislation at issue, if that party does not have access or only has limited access to those statistics or facts.






(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.