Case C-584/23, Alcampo and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 September 2023 — Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad Social n.° 151 KT v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) Alcampo S.A., successor to Supermercados Sabeco, S.A.
Date: 2023-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child care, disability insurance, disabled person, equal treatment, gender equality, occupational accident, part-time employment, sexual discrimination








C_202400933EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/933


29.1.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 September 2023 — Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad Social n.o 151 KT v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) Alcampo S.A., successor to Supermercados Sabeco, S.A.
(Case C-584/23, Alcampo and Others)
(C/2024/933)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad Social n.o 151 KT

Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo S. A., successor to Supermercados Sabeco, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Is the Spanish rule on calculating the basic amount of benefits for permanent invalidity resulting from an accident at work, established in Article 60 of the Decreto de 22 de junio de 1956 (Decree of 22 June 1956), contrary to the EU rules established in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) and Article 5 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), (2) in so far as this would constitute a case of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, since it is mostly women who reduce their working hours to care for children and therefore the benefit entitlement is clearly lower?










2.


Bearing in mind that the Spanish rule establishing the method used to calculate benefits for permanent invalidity resulting from an accident at work — Article 60(2) of the Decree of 22 June 1956 — takes account of the salary actually received at the time of the accident, and that the Spanish public social security system establishes, as a contributory family benefit — Article 237(3) of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Social Security Law) — that, during the first two years of the period when working hours are reduced to care for a child, as provided for in Article 37(6) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Statute of Workers’ Rights), [the contributions] are increased to 100 %, and that, according to statistical data, 90 % of the persons applying for a reduction of working hours to care for a child are women, are the above-mentioned Spanish rules contrary to Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC, and do they constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex?






(1)  
            OJ 1979 L 6.


(2)  
            OJ 2006, L 204.



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/933/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)