Case C-374/24, UNMLibres – II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon – Nivelles Division (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2024 – UF v Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
Date: 2024-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, maternity benefit, maternity leave, self-employed person, sexual discrimination, social security legislation, social-security contribution, wage earner








C_202405210EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5210


2.9.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon – Nivelles Division (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2024 – UF v Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)


(Case C-374/24, UNMLibres – II)

(C/2024/5210)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon – Division Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UF

Defendant: Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 97 of l’arrêté royal du 20 juillet 1971 instituant une assurance indemnités et une assurance maternité en faveur des travailleurs indépendants et des conjoints aidants (Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing benefit insurance and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and assisting spouses) [which] states that ‘maternity allowance is reduced by the amount of the benefits that the holder may claim under the loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994 (law relating to compulsory insurance for healthcare and benefits coordinated on 14 July 1994) (weeks of maternity leave referred to in Article 93)’ be interpreted as being contrary to Article 8 of Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 concerning the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC (1) by not allowing sufficient benefits for the applicant, Ms UF, who had been working both as a part-time-time employee and as a self-employed worker on a supplementary basis since 1 January 2002, and had been contributing to both the employee and self-employed schemes[?] Ms UF gave birth on 1 March 2006 and received only EUR 3 074 for her maternity leave from 16 February 2006 to 31 May 2006, which was calculated solely on the basis of her employee scheme.










2.


Given the fact that the applicant has contributed to both social security schemes since 1 January 2002 and has only received social security benefits for employees based on Article 97 of the aforementioned Royal Decree, in this case, her aforementioned maternity allowance and no social security benefit from the scheme for self-employed workers to which she has also contributed, is this legislation contrary to Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (2) which provides that ‘Without prejudice to Article 4, there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in occupational social security schemes, in particular as regards:(a) the scope of such schemes and the conditions of access to them; (b) the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions; (c) the calculation of benefits, including supplementary benefits due in respect of a spouse or dependants, and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.’?










3.


The application of Article 97 of the aforementioned Royal Decree results in unfavourable treatment of a woman on maternity leave who is employed part-time and self-employed on a supplementary basis and can only claim maternity allowance calculated on the basis of her part-time employment, does that therefore constitute discrimination based on sex according to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read in conjunction with Articles 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? To that effect, Recital 23 of Directive 2006/54/EC states that ‘It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that unfavourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex. Such treatment should therefore be expressly covered by this Directive.’






(1)  
            OJ 2010 L 180, p. 1.

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5210/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)