Joined Cases C-184/22 and C-185/22, KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2024 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – IK (C-184/22), CM (C-185/22) v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Article 157 TFEU – Equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation – Directive 2006/54/EC – Article 2(1)(b) and Article 4, first paragraph – Prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex – Part-time work – Directive 97/81/EC – Framework Agreement on part-time work – Clause 4 – Prohibition on treating part-time workers less favourably than comparable full-time workers – Payment of additional pay only for overtime worked by part-time workers in excess of the normal working hours set for full-time workers)
Date: 2024-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bonus payment, collective agreement, equal pay, full-time employment, health care profession, medical institution, overtime, part-time employment, sexual discrimination, work contract








C_202405589EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5589


30.9.2024






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2024 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – IK (C-184/22), CM (C-185/22) v KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.


(Joined Cases C-184/22 and C-185/22,
                (1)
KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 157 TFEU - Equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 2006/54/EC - Article 2(1)(b) and Article 4, first paragraph - Prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex - Part-time work - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Prohibition on treating part-time workers less favourably than comparable full-time workers - Payment of additional pay only for overtime worked by part-time workers in excess of the normal working hours set for full-time workers)
(C/2024/5589)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: IK (C-184/22), CM (C-185/22)

Defendant: KfH Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997 and 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 meaning that national legislation under which the payment of overtime supplements is provided, for part-time workers, only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours laid down for full-time workers in a comparable situation, constitutes ‘less favourable’ treatment of part-time workers, within the meaning of Clause 4(1), which is not capable of being justified by the pursuit, first, of the objective of deterring the employer from requiring workers to work overtime in excess of the hours individually agreed in their employment contracts and, secondly, of the objective of preventing full-time workers from being treated less favourably than part-time workers.










2.


Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first paragraph of 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 meaning, first, that national legislation under which the payment of overtime supplements is provided, for part-time workers, only for hours worked in excess of the normal working hours laid down for full-time workers in a comparable situation, constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of sex if it is established that that legislation disadvantages a significantly higher proportion of women than men without it also being necessary for the group of workers which is not placed at a disadvantage by that legislation, namely full-time workers, to be made up of a considerably higher number of men than women and, secondly, that such discrimination cannot be justified by the pursuit of the objective of deterring the employer from requiring workers to work overtime in excess of the hours individually agreed in their employment contracts and of the objective of preventing full-time workers from being treated less favourably than part-time workers.






(1)  
            OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5589/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)