Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon.
Date: 2010-09-16
25. The Court, for its part, derives its jurisdiction to interpret directives from Article 267 TFEU. The Framework Agreement is admittedly the product of a dialogue, based on the Agreement on Social Policy, between management and labour at European level, but it has been implemented, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Agreement on Social Policy, by a Council directive, of which it is thus an integral component (see, to this effect, Case C-537/07 Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho  [2009] ECR I‑6525, paragraph 34).
27. Since Mrs Chatzi has the status of public official, it should be established first of all whether Directive 96/34 and the Framework Agreement which is annexed to it are intended to apply also to public officials.
28. The provisions of those two measures do not contain anything permitting the inference that public officials are excluded from their scope.
29. On the contrary, as is apparent from the wording of clause 1.2 of the Framework Agreement, the scope of the Framework Agreement is conceived in broad terms, covering generally ‘all workers … who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreements or practices in force in each Member State’. Furthermore, clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement refers to ‘workers’, without drawing a distinction according to whether their employer is in the public or private sector, thereby encompassing all workers (see, in relation to the framework agreement on fixed-term work, set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), Case C-212/04 Adeneler and Others  [2006] ECR I‑6057, paragraph 54 et seq., and Case C-180/04 Vassallo  [2006] ECR I-7251, paragraph 32).
30. This interpretation is, moreover, borne out by the consideration that, as is apparent from the first recital in the preamble to the Framework Agreement and paragraph 4 of the general considerations, the Framework Agreement is intended, in particular, to promote equal treatment between men and women in the field of employment and work. The Court has held that the principle of equal treatment for men and women, which forms part of the social provisions of the Treaty, is of general application and applies to employment in the public sector (see, to this effect, Case C-1/95 Gerster  [1997] ECR I‑5253, paragraph 18, and Case C-285/98 Kreil  [2000] ECR I-69, paragraph 18).
Question 1
36. In accordance with clause 1.1 of the Framework Agreement, parental leave is designed ‘to facilitate the reconciliation of parental and professional responsibilities for working parents’, an objective set, as paragraph 4 of the general considerations in the Framework Agreement recalls, by point 16 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, adopted at the European Council meeting held in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989.
37. It was with the same objective that the right to parental leave was included in Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights among the fundamental social rights grouped together in Title IV under the heading ‘Solidarity’.
42. In accordance with settled case-law, it is necessary, in interpreting a provision of Community law, to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-306/05 SGAE  [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 34, and Joined Cases C‑402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others  [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 41).
43. In addition, under a general principle of interpretation, a Community measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole (see, in particular, Case C-361/06 Feinchemie Schwebda and Bayer CropScience  [2008] ECR I‑3865, paragraphs 49 and 50, and Sturgeon and Others , paragraphs 47 and 48), including with the principle of equal treatment.
44. This case-law may be applied to agreements, such as the Framework Agreement, that have been implemented by a Council directive, of which they are thus an integral component (see paragraph 25 of the present judgment).
Wording of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement
47. According to the Cypriot Government, confirmation for the interpretation that the decisive criterion conferring entitlement to parental leave is the child and not the birth is found in Case C-519/03 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2005] ECR I-3067, paragraph 47, in which the Court held that the wording that parental leave is conferred ‘on the grounds of the birth’ of a child reflects only the fact that the grant of parental leave is subject to the condition that a child has been born.
50. So far as concerns the purport of Commission  v Luxembourg , it is clear on reading paragraph 47 of that judgment that, in interpreting clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement as meaning that the grant of parental leave is subject not to birth but to the condition that a child has been born, the Court sought to indicate that the right to parental leave is not connected with the date of birth and that it is not necessary for the child to have been born after the entry into force of Directive 96/34 in the Member State concerned. The Court thus ruled on the temporal application of Directive 96/34 and not on whether, in the event of a multiple birth, a number of periods of parental leave equal to the number of children born must be granted.
56. As is apparent from the first recital in the preamble to the Framework Agreement and from paragraph 5 of its general considerations, the Framework Agreement constitutes an undertaking by the two sides of industry to introduce, through minimum requirements, measures to promote equal opportunities and treatment between men and women, by offering them an opportunity to reconcile their work responsibilities with family obligations (Case C-116/08 Meerts  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 35).
57. To this end, the Framework Agreement enables new parents to take a break from work to devote themselves to their family responsibilities, whilst giving them the assurance, set out in clause 2.5 of the Framework Agreement, that they will be entitled to return to the same job at the end of the leave. During a period freely set by each Member State subject to a minimum duration of three months, and in accordance with detailed rules left to national legislatures to determine, the new parents are thus able to provide their child with the assistance that his or her age requires and to make provision for measures organising family life with a view to their return to work.
64. This principle requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, inter alia, Case C-164/07 Wood  [2008] ECR I-4143, paragraph 13, and Sturgeon and Others , paragraph 48).