Source: https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/austria-supreme-court-2019-ecliatogh00022019rs0132518
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 10:05:17+00:00

Document:
Austria / Supreme Court / [2019] ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2019:RS0132518 | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant (a medical doctor) for six hours per week. The collective agreement for employees of doctors, doctors, and medical group practices was applicable to this employment. The defendant terminated the employment relationship with a notice period of 14 days by 30 June 2017. The plaintiff sought the payment of 1,018.20 EUR in termination benefits including special payments and holiday compensation for the period from 1 July 2017 to 30 September 2017. She argued that her employment relationship could have been terminated on 30 September 2017 at the earliest pursuant to § 20 (2) Austrian Employee Act (old version). Since mostly women are employed part-time, the Austrian provision providing for a shorter termination period for part-time workers would be in breach of EU law and must therefore remain unapplied.
§20 (1) Austrian Employee Act (old version) exempted a group of part-time employees, whose working time was less than one-fifth of the normal working hours, from the application of the longer termination and notice periods. The Supreme Court had to decide whether this Austrian provision providing for a shorter termination period for part-time workers constitutes an inadmissible (indirect) discrimination based on gender.
The Supreme Court reasoned that part-time employment is still predominantly pursued by women. According to recent statistics, part-time work was also typical for women in 2017. According to the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice, lower remuneration arrangements and terms of employment for part-time workers, including conditions for termination of employment, may constitute indirect discrimination based on gender on the basis of Article 157 TFEU. The Supreme Court rules that since there is no substantive reason for the unequal treatment of minor employed workers with respect to dismissal rules, the provision of § 20 (1) Austrian Employee Act (old version) is not in accordance with Union law, in particular with Articles 21 and 23 CFR in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 (1) (b) of Directive 2006/54/EC and § 4 (1) of the Framework Agreement on Directive 97/81/EC. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgments of the lower courts are to be amended so that the decision reads: "The defendant is guilty of paying 1,018.02 EUR to the plaintiff with 4% interest since 1 July 2017 within 14 days.
Articles 21 (1) and 23 EUCFR prohibit any discrimination based on gender and enshrine the right to equal treatment of men and women in all areas, including employment and remuneration. This prohibition of discrimination or equal treatment requirement is specified by Directive 2006/54/EC, which has been implemented domestically by the GlBG. In this context, Directive 97/81/ EC, which has been transposed into national law by § 19d AZG, also plays a role. Part-time employment is still predominantly pursued by women. According to statistics recently published by Statistics Austria (www.statistik.at), part-time work was also typical for women in 2017. As such, 47.7% of women work part-time annually. By contrast, the proportion of men working part-time was only 11.9%. Directive 97/81/EC, although it also benefits men, is primarily aimed at eliminating indirect discrimination against women (Kucsko-Stadelmayer / Kuras in Mayer / Stoeger, EUV / TFEU Art. 157 TFEU, Rz 134). According to the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice, lower remuneration arrangements and terms of employment for part-time workers, including conditions for termination of employment (ECJ 20. 12. 2017, C-158/16, Vega Gonzáles, Rn 34), may constitute indirect discrimination based on gender on the basis of Article 157 TFEU (CJEU 22.11.2012, C-385/11, Elbal Moreno, para. 29). In its decision 8 ObS 5/11k, the Supreme Court already attached importance to the doubts expressed by scholars of European law. Since there is no substantive reason for the unequal treatment of minor employed workers with respect to dismissal rules, the provision of § 20 (1) Austrian Employee Act
(old version) is not in accordance with Union law, in particular with Articles 21 and 23 CFR in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 (1) (b) of Directive 2006/54/EC and § 4 (1) of the Framework Agreement on Directive 97/81/EC.
Die Art 21 Abs 1 und 23 GRC verbieten jegliche Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts und verankern das Recht auf Gleichbehandlung von Männern und Frauen in allen Bereichen, einschließlich Beschäftigung und Entgelt. Dieses Diskriminierungsverbot bzw Gleichbehandlungsgebot wird durch die Richtlinie 2006/54/EG konkretisiert, die im Inland durch das GlBG umgesetzt wurde. Bedeutung kommt in diesem Zusammenhang auch der Richtlinie 97/81/EG – innerstaatlich umgesetzt durch § 19d AZG – zu. Nach wie vor werden Teilzeitbeschäftigungen überwiegend von Frauen ausgeübt. Nach den von der Statistik Austria zuletzt veröffentlichten Daten (www.statistik.at) war auch 2017 Teilzeitarbeit typisch für Frauen. So arbeiteten 47,7 % der Frauen im Jahresdurchschnitt Teilzeit. Demgegenüber lag der Anteil der erwerbstätigen Männer, die eine Teilzeitbschäftigung ausüben, bei nur 11,9 %. Die Richtlinie 97/81/EG ist, obgleich sie auch Männern zugute kommt, in erster Linie auf die Beseitigung der mittelbaren Diskriminierung von Frauen gerichtet (Kucsko-Stadelmayer/Kuras in Mayer/Stöger, EUV/ AEUV Art 157 AEUV Rz 134). Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs können schlechtere entgeltrechtliche Modalitäten und Beschäftigungsbedingungen für Teilzeitbeschäftigte, zu welchen auch die Bedingungen für die Beendigung des Arbeitsverhältnisses zählen (EuGH 20. 12. 2017, C-158/16, Vega Gonzáles, Rn 34), eine mittelbare Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts nach Art 157 AEUV darstellen (EuGH 22. 11. 2012, C-385/11, Elbal Moreno, Rn 29). Der Oberste Gerichtshof hat bereits in seiner Entscheidung 8 ObS 5/11k den in europarechtlicher Hinsicht geäußerten Bedenken der Lehre Bedeutung zugemessen. Da ein sachlicher Grund für die Ungleichbehandlung geringfügig beschäftigter ArbeitnehmerInnen in Bezug auf die Kündigungsvorschriften nicht ersichtlich ist, steht die Bestimmung des § 20 Abs 1 AngG aF mit dem Unionsrecht, insbesondere Art 21 und 23 GRC in Verbindung mit Art 1 und 2 Abs 1 Buchstabe b der Richtlinie 2006/54/EG bzw § 4 Z 1 der Rahmenvereinbarung zu der Richtlinie 97/81/EG, nicht in Einklang.

References: § 20

§20
 § 20
 § 4
 § 19
 Art. 157
 § 20
 § 4
 § 19
 § 20
 § 4