Judgment of the Court of 12 February 1974. - Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesarbeitsgericht - Germany. - Equality of treatment of workers coming from different Member States. - Case 152-73.
European Court reports 1974 Page 00153
Greek special edition Page 00087
Portuguese special edition Page 00091
Spanish special edition Page 00087
Swedish special edition Page 00219
Finnish special edition Page 00219
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
++++
1 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE - EXCEPTION - LIMITS - APPLICATION SOLELY TO MEASURES RESTRICTING ADMISSION - EQUALITY OF TREATMENT AS REGARDS REMUNERATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT
( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ))
2 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - SEPARATION ALLOWANCE - REMUNERATION - SUPPLEMENT - CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK - MEANING
( REGULATION NO 1612/68 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ))
3 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - CRITERIA - COVERT DISCRIMINATION - SEPARATION ALLOWANCE - GRANT - CRITERIA - RESIDENCE - RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - OBJECTIVE DIFFERENTIATION - LAWFULNESS
( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48; REGULATION NO 1612/68, ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ))
Summary
1 . THE INTERESTS WHICH THE EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ) OF THE TREATY ALLOWS MEMBER STATES TO PROTECT ARE SATISFIED BY THE OPPORTUNITY OF RESTRICTING ADMISSION OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE; THIS PROVISION CANNOT JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES WITH REGARD TO REMUNERATION OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AGAINST WORKERS ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE .
THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYING ADMINISTRATION IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THIS RESPECT .
2 . ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCONVENIENCES SUFFERED BY A WORKER WHO IS SEPARATED FROM HIS HOME, REPRESENTS SUPPLEMENTARY REMUNERATION AND FALLS WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF 'CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK' WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO DEFINE WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY VIRTUE OF AN OPTION OR OF AN OBLIGATION, EITHER STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL .
3 . THE RULES REGARDING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FORBID NOT ONLY OVERT DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF NATIONALITY BUT ALSO ALL COVERT FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH, BY THE APPLICATION OF OTHER CRITERIA OF DIFFERENTIATION, LEAD IN FACT TO THE SAME RESULT .
THE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, AS A CRITERION FOR THE GRANT OF A SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, OF THE FACT THAT A WORKER HAS HIS RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MAY, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSTITUTE A FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION .
THIS IS NOT THE CASE IF THE SCHEME RELATING TO SUCH AN ALLOWANCE TAKES ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES IN THE SITUATIONS OF WORKERS ACCORDING TO WHETHER