CELEX: C2001/331/07
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2001 in Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank v Michel Hautem (Appeal — Members of the staff of the European Investment Bank — Dismissal — Interpretation of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank — Plea alleging mistaken characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error in the statement of reasons — Alleged infringement of the rules applicable to relations between the European Investment Bank and its staff)

24.11.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 331/5
health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — the Court, composed                                              (Sixth Chamber)
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                       of 2 October 2001
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October
2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            in Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank v Michel
                                                                                                         Hautem (1)
1.   Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October
     1992, on the introduction of measures to encourage improve-
     ments in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and         (Appeal — Members of the staff of the European Investment
     workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (10th       Bank — Dismissal — Interpretation of the Staff Regulations
     individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of            of the European Investment Bank — Plea alleging mistaken
     Directive 89/391/EEC), has direct affect and is to be interpreted      characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error
     to the effect that, in the absence of transposition measures taken     in the statement of reasons — Alleged infringement of
     by a Member State within the period prescribed by that                 the rules applicable to relations between the European
     Directive, it confers on individuals rights on which they may                           Investment Bank and its staff)
     rely before a national court against the authorities of that State.
                                                                                                      (2001/C 331/07)
2.   In allowing derogations from the prohibition of dismissal of
     pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or
     workers who are breast feeding in cases ‘not connected with
     their condition which are permitted under national legislation                             (Language of the case: French)
     and/or practice’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, does
     not require the Member States to specify the particular grounds
     on which such workers may be dismissed.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                               in the European Court Reports)
3.   Whilst the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 10
     of Directive 92/85/EEC applies to both employment contracts
     for an indefinite period and fixed-term contracts, non-renewal
     of such a contract, when it comes to an end as stipulated,
     cannot be regarded as a dismissal prohibited by that provision.        In Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank (Agent:
                                                                            G. Marchegiani, assisted by G. Vandersanden) appeal against
     However, where non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is
     motivated by the worker’s state of pregnancy, it constitutes           the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
     direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1)
                                                                            T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897,
     and 3(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
     1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment         seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: Michel Hautem, a member of the
     for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
                                                                            staff of the European Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler
     training and promotion, and working conditions.
                                                                            (Luxembourg) (Avocats: M. Karp and J. Choucroun) — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
4.   In providing that the dismissal of a pregnant worker, of a             of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
     worker who has recently given birth or of a worker who is              R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
     breastfeeding may take place, in exceptional cases ‘and, where         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
     applicable, provided that competent authority has given its            2001, in which it:
     consent’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC is not to be
     interpreted as imposing on Member States any obligation to
     have a national authority, having found that there is an               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
     exceptional case justifying the dismissal of a pregnant worker,
     give its consent prior to the employer’s decision to dismiss the
     worker.                                                                2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.