CELEX: 62010CN0572
Language: en
Date: 2010-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-572/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion (France) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État

5.3.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/4
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion (France) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État
   (Case C-572/10)
   2011/C 72/07
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Clément Amedée
   
      Defendants: Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Can the scheme put in place by Article L. 12(b) of the French Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by Article 48 of the Law of 21 August 2003, and by Article R. 13 of that Code, as amended by Article 6 of the Decree of 26 December 2003, be regarded as giving rise to indirect discrimination, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on [the Functioning of the] European Union, against the biological parents of children, given the proportion of men liable to fulfil the condition relating to a break in their career for a continuous period of at least two months, in particular by reason of the absence of a statutory framework allowing them to fulfil that condition by taking paid leave?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can the indirect discrimination thus established be justified by the terms of Article 6(3) of the Agreement annexed to Protocol No 14 on Social Policy [annexed to the Treaty on European Union]?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the second question is answered in the negative, do the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) preclude the maintenance in force of Articles L. 12(b) and R. 13 of the French Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second and third questions are answered in the negative, must any challenge to those articles be limited solely to the discrimination that they imply or does it relate to the impossibility for civil servants of both sexes to benefit from them?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).