CELEX: C1996/269/36
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial Tribunals, Southampton, by order of that court of 19 July 1996, in the case of Lisa Jacqueline Grant against South-West Trains Ltd (Case C-249/96)

14. 9 . 96                I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 17
      ( ii ) they have the right to a pension at the age of 55              1 . Are Articles 4 8 and 5 1 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
              instead of the normal age of 60;                                   as meaning that the provisions of point 4 ( a ) or ( c ),
                                                                                 depending on the relevant time, of Part J of Annex VI to
( d ) the worker is deprived of the status of Mental Health                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 are incompatible with
      Officer and the additional benefits attached thereto                       those Articles in so far as no account is taken of certain
      solely on the ground that her employment was part                          periods of work when calculating a pro rata benefit
      time ;                                                                     under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheids­
                                                                                 verzekering, for migrant workers ?
(e ) the national tribunal has held that the provisions
      described at ( c ) and ( d ) constitute discrimination on             2 . Is point 4 ( a ) or (c ), depending on the relevant time, of
      grounds of sex against women working part time in the                      Part J of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as
      care of the mentally ill ;                                                 they stood on 20 July 1991 and 17 June 1992
                                                                                 respectively, to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
( f) the pension which the worker receives and the                               paid employment and periods treated as such completed
      additional benefits which they claim, are only payable                     in the Netherlands before 1 July 1967 include :
      to them as and from their respective retirements in 1 992
      and 1994 , after their claims have been brought before                     ( a ) periods during which the person concerned was
      the national tribunal ; and                                                      performing his compulsory military service under
                                                                                       the Netherlands legislation;
(g) the calculation of the additional benefits from their
      respective retirement dates in 1992 and 1994 would
      involve counting their years of service prior to 1992 :                    ( b ) periods during which the person concerned was an
                                                                                       enlisted member of the Netherlands armed forces
                                                                                       and in that capacity came under a special statutory
       1 . From what date should the service on the workers                            insurance scheme against incapacity for work for
             be counted for the purpose of calculating the                             civil servants and persons treated as such ?
             additional benefits to which they are entitled
                                                                            3 . Is the answer to question 2 different if the periods during
                 ( i ) 8 April 1976                                              which the person concerned was performing his
                                                                                 compulsory military service under the Netherlands
               ( ii ) 17 May 1990                                                legislation were completed within or outside the
                                                                                 territory of the European Union ( at that time the
             ( iii ) some other and if so, what date ?                            European Community )?
       2 . Where the relevant national legislation restricts
             back-dating entitlement in the event of a successful
             claim to a period of two years prior to the date on
             which the claim was made , does this amount to the
             denial of an effective remedy under Community law
             and is the industrial tribunal obliged to disregard
             such provision in domestic law if it feels it necessary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
             to do so ?                                                     Tribunals , Southampton, by order of that court of 19 July
                                                                             1996 , in the case of Lisa Jacqueline Grant against
                                                                                                  South-West Trains Ltd
                                                                                                     ( Case C-249/96
                                                                                                        ( 96/C 269/36 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by judgment of                         European Communities by order of the Industrial Tribunals
 that court of 16 July 1996 in the case of 1 . R. O.J. Grahame               of 1 9 July 1 996, which was received at the Court Registry on
  and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene                 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lisa
                              Bedrijfsvereniging                            Jacqueline Grant against South-West Trains Ltd, on the
                               ( Case C-248/96 )                             following questions :
                                 ( 96/C 269/35 )
                                                                             1 . It is ( subject to 6 below ) contrary to the principle of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                              equal pay for men and women established by Article 119
  the European Communities by order of the                                        of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
  Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam, of                      by Article 1 of Council Directive 75/1 17/EEC (') for an
  16 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                      employee to be refused travel concessions for an
  22 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . R. O.               unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such
 J. Grahame and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de                            concessions are available for spouses or unmarried
  Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging on the following                             opposite sex cohabiting partners of such an
  questions :                                                                     employee ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/ 18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
2 . For the purposes of Article 119 does 'discrimination                 — uphold the contentions put forward by the European
       based on sex ' include discrimination based on the                    Parliament at first instance, namely that the Court
       employee 's sexual orientation ?                                      should :
3 . For the purpose of Article 119 , does ' discrimination                  — dismiss the application,
       based on sex' include discrimination based on the sex of
       that employee 's partner ?                                           — make an appropriate order as to costs ,
4 . If the answer to question 1 is yes, does an employee, to                     and
       whom such concessions are refused, enjoy a directly
       enforceable community right against his employer ?
                                                                         — as regards the proceedings before the Court of Justice,
                                                                             also make an appropriate order as to costs .
5 . Is such a refusal contrary to the provisions of Council
       Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 )?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6 . Is it open to an employer to justify such refusal if he can
       show ( a ) that the purpose of the concessions in question        — Inadmissibility of the ground of annulment of the Court
       is to confer benefits on married partners or partners in              of First Instance : the ground of annulment based on the
       an equivalent position to married partners and ( b ) that             formal difference between Competitions No PE/LA/91
       relationships between same-sex cohabiting partners                    and No PE/161 /LA was never relied on by the applicant
       have not traditionally been, and are not generally,                   at first instance . It would at least be illogical to prohibit
       regarded by society as equivalent to marriage, rather                 the applicant from putting forward new grounds during
       than on the basis of an economic or organizational                    the proceedings while allowing the Court of First
       reason relating to the employment in question ?                       Instance to do so of its own motion .
(') Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the     — Absence of an act adversely affecting the official and lack
      application of the principle of equal pay for men and women            of legal interest in bringing the action : the official
      ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).                                submitted his candidature only for Competition No
( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                 PE/LA/91 . It would be no less than surprising if a notice
      implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and         of competition for which the potential candiate did not
      women as regards access to employment, vocational training             in fact apply were to be considered to be an act adversely
      and promotion , and working conditions ( Of No L 39 , 14 . 2 .         affecting him . It is hard to understand how, in the
      1976 , p. 40 ).                                                        present case , a competition for which the applicant at
                                                                             first instance did not submit his candidature, although
                                                                             he was fully able to do so since he fulfilled all the
                                                                             requirements for acceptance , could in any way affect his
                                                                             legal situation .
Appeal brought on 22 July 1996 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996                 — Lack of repercussion of the differences between the two
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  notices on the review of Mr Gutierrez Quijano's
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                        application or on the selection of the candidates
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                              eventually accepted .
                                 Parliament
                          ( Case C-252/96 P )
                              ( 96/C 269/37 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                    Appeal brought on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                          European Union against the judgment delivered on 26 June
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities on 22 July 1996 by the European                     of the European Communities in Case T-91/95 between
Parliament, represented by Manfred Peter , Head of                       L. de Nil and C. Impens and the Council of the European
Division, and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana , of its Legal Service,                                           Union
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat                                     ( Case C-259/96 P )
of the European Parliament .
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 269/38 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 June 1996
— set aside the judgment in Case T-140/94 Enrique                        by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
        Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v . Parliament (1 996 ),          European Communities in Case T-91 /95 between L. de Nil