CELEX: C2005/069/18
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-17/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission

19.3.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 69/8
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission
   (Case C-17/05)
   (2005/C 69/18)
   Language of procedure: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), dated 11 January 2005, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.F. Cadman and Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission on the following questions:
   
               1)
            
            
               Where the use by an employer of the criterion of length of service as a determinant of pay has a disparate impact as between relevant male and female employees, does Article 141 EC require the employer to provide special justification for recourse to that criterion? If the answer depends on the circumstances, what are those circumstances?
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Would the answer to the preceding question be different if the employer applies the criterion of length of service on an individual basis to employees so that an assessment is made as to the extent to which greater length of service justifies a greater level of pay?
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Is there any relevant distinction to be drawn between the use of the criterion of length of service in the case of part-time workers and the use of that criterion in the case of full-time workers?