CELEX: C2001/227/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application — Difference in pay — Definition of "the same work" and "work of equal value" — Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof — Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a specific employee's work)

11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 21 June 2001
                                                                                                       of 26 June 2001
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99
P: Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)                                  in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v
                                                                                   Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (1)
(Appeal — Aid to the steel industry — Restructuring of the
                        iron and steel sector)
                                                                            (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application
                           (2001/C 227/04)                                  — Difference in pay — Definition of ‘the same work’ and
                                                                            ‘work of equal value’ — Classification, under a collective
                                                                            agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a
                                                                                                  specific employee’s work)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2001/C 227/05)
                    in the European Court Reports)
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P,
Moccia Irme SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by                                  (Language of the case: German)
E. Capelli, P. de Caterini and A. Bandini, avvocati, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), represented by
C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati, and Ferriera
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecomprati (Italy),
represented by C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati,                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                     in the European Court Reports)
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 12 May 1999 in Case T-164/96 to
T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97 Moccia Irme and Others v                    In Case C-381/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Commission [1999] ECR II-1477, seeking to have that judg-                   from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Pignatu-                  Susanna Brunnhofer and Bank der österreichischen Postspark-
ro, assisted by M. Moretto), Prolafer Srl, established in Bergamo           asse AG — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC
(Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,              Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore                   replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) and of Council Directive
(Italy) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-                   75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,               the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geel-                the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                        L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June                C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
2001, in which it:                                                          R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                            gues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
2.    Orders Moccia Irme SpA, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Ferriera
      Acciaieria Casilina SpA to bear their own costs and jointly and       The principle of equal pay for men and women laid down in
      severally to pay those incurred by the Commission in these            Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
      proceedings.                                                          have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and elaborated
                                                                            by Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
                                                                            mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted
                                                                            as follows:
                                                                            —     a monthly salary supplement to which the employees concerned
                                                                                  are entitled under their individual employment contracts, paid
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
     by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and the
     Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis of
     an overall assessment of all the consideration granted to                                         (First Chamber)
     employees but also in the light of each aspect of pay taken in
     isolation;                                                                                        of 28 June 2001
                                                                            in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
—    the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim of
                                                                            the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut
     discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are
                                                                            national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
     classified in the same job category under the collective agreement
                                                                                                        dants (Inasti) (1)
     governing their employment is not in itself sufficient for
     concluding that the two employees concerned are performing
     the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within        (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 — Retire-
     the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of           ment pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability
     the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst          pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation
     others that this criterion is met;                                             of effects — Serious breach of Community law)
                                                                                                       (2001/C 227/06)
—    as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to
     be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving
     lower pay than paid by the employer to a colleague of the other
     sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work                              (Language of the case: French)
     of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen
     comparator; the employer may then not only dispute the fact
     that the conditions for the application of the principle of equal      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     pay for men and women are met in the case but also put                                     in the European Court Reports)
     forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination
     based on sex, to justify the difference in pay;
                                                                            In Case C-118/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du travail
                                                                            de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a preliminary
—    a difference in pay is capable of being justified by circumstances     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
     not taken into consideration under the collective agreement            Gervais Larsy and Institut national d’assurances sociales pour
     application to the employees concerned, provided that they             travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — on the interpretation of
     constitute objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination           Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
     based on sex and in conformity with the principle of pro-              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     portionality;                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                            of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                            and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
—    in the case of work paid at time rates, a difference in pay            2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council
     awarded, at the time of their appointment, to two employees of         Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
     different sex for the same job or work of equal value cannot be        L 136, p. 7), and on the conditions governing a Member State’s
     justified by factors which become known only after the employees       liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of
     concerned take up their duties and which can be assessed only          Community law — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
     once the employment contract is being performed, such as a             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
     difference in the individual work capacity of the persons              and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger; Advocate General; H. von
     concerned or in the effectiveness of the work of a specific            Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
     employee compared with that of a colleague.                            judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                                  of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                                  security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                                  and to members of their families moving within the Community
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                           as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                  No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
                                                                                  Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, does not
                                                                                  apply to an application for review of a retirement pension, the
                                                                                  amount of which has been limited under an anti-overlapping
                                                                                  rule applicable in a Member State, on the ground that the
                                                                                  person receiving that pension has also been awarded a retirement
                                                                                  pension paid by the competent institution of another Member
                                                                                  State, where the application for review is based on provisions
                                                                                  other than those in Regulation No 1248/92.