M. H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching).
Date: 1986-02-26
32 THE COURT OBSERVES IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IT DOES NOT CONCERN ACCESS TO A STATUTORY OR OCCUPATIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME , THAT IS TO SAY THE CONDITIONS FOR PAYMENT OF AN OLD-AGE OR RETIREMENT PENSION , BUT THE FIXING OF AN AGE LIMIT WITH REGARD TO THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT PURSUANT TO A GENERAL POLICY CONCERNING DISMISSAL . THE QUESTION THEREFORE RELATES TO THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING DISMISSAL AND FALLS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 .
34 IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE BURTON CASE THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED THAT THE TERM ' DISMISSAL '  CONTAINED IN THAT PROVISION MUST BE GIVEN A WIDE MEANING . CONSEQUENTLY , AN AGE LIMIT FOR THE COMPULSORY DISMISSAL OF WORKERS PURSUANT TO AN EMPLOYER ' S GENERAL POLICY CONCERNING RETIREMENT FALLS WITHIN THE TERM ' DISMISSAL '  CONSTRUED IN THAT MANNER , EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL INVOLVES THE GRANT OF A RETIREMENT PENSION .
36 HOWEVER , IN VIEW OF THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT , WHICH THE COURT HAS REAFFIRMED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS , ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 , WHICH EXCLUDES SOCIAL SECURITY MATTERS FROM THE SCOPE OF THAT DIRECTIVE , MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY . CONSEQUENTLY , THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 79/7 APPLIES ONLY TO THE DETERMINATION OF PENSIONABLE AGE FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANTING OLD-AGE AND RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF FOR OTHER BENEFITS .
38 CONSEQUENTLY , THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE COURT OF APPEAL MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF DIRCTIVE NO 76/207 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A GENERAL POLICY CONCERNING DISMISSAL INVOLVING THE DISMISSAL OF A WOMAN SOLELY BECAUSE SHE HAS ATTAINED THE QUALIFYING AGE FOR A STATE PENSION , WHICH AGE IS DIFFERENT UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION FOR MEN AND FOR WOMEN , CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX , CONTRARY TO THAT DIRECTIVE .

THE SECOND QUESTION
40 THE APPELLANT AND THE COMMISSION CONSIDER THAT THAT QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE . THEY CONTEND IN PARTICULAR , WITH REGARD TO ARTICLES 2 ( 1 ) AND 5 ( 1 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 , THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO ENABLE NATIONAL COURTS TO APPLY THEM WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION BY THE MEMBER STATES , AT LEAST SO FAR AS OVERT DISCRIMINATION IS CONCERNED .
46 IT IS NECESSARY TO RECALL THAT , ACCORDING TO A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT ( IN PARTICULAR ITS JUDGMENT OF 19 JANUARY 1982 IN CASE 8/81 BECKER V FINANZAMT MUNSTER-INNENSTADT ( 1982 ) ECR 53 ), WHEREVER THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE APPEAR , AS FAR AS THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER IS CONCERNED , TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE , THOSE PROVISIONS MAY BE RELIED UPON BY AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE STATE WHERE THAT STATE FAILS TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVE IN NATIONAL LAW BY THE END OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED OR WHERE IT FAILS TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVE CORRECTLY .
48 WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT THAT A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 189 OF THE EEC TREATY THE BINDING NATURE OF A DIRECTIVE , WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BASIS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF RELYING ON THE DIRECTIVE BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT , EXISTS ONLY IN RELATION TO ' EACH MEMBER STATE TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED ' . IT FOLLOWS THAT A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT OF ITSELF IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL AND THAT A PROVISION OF A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS SUCH AGAINST SUCH A PERSON . IT MUST THEREFORE BE EXAMINED WHETHER , IN THIS CASE , THE RESPONDENT MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING ACTED AS AN INDIVIDUAL .
49 IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT WHERE A PERSON INVOLVED IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS ABLE TO RELY ON A DIRECTIVE AS AGAINST THE STATE HE MAY DO SO REGARDLESS OF THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THE LATTER IS ACTING , WHETHER EMPLOYER OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY . IN EITHER CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ITS OWN FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
52 FINALLY , WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 , WHICH IMPLEMENTS THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT SET OUT IN ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE , MAY BE CONSIDERED , AS FAR AS ITS CONTENTS ARE CONCERNED , TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE RELIED UPON BY AN INDIVIDUAL AS AGAINST THE STATE , IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE PROVISION , TAKEN BY ITSELF , PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX WITH REGARD TO WORKING CONDITIONS , INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING DISMISSAL , IN A GENERAL MANNER AND IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS . THE PROVISION IS THEREFORE SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE RELIED ON BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND TO BE APPLIED BY THE NATIONAL COURTS .
55 IT FOLLOWS THAT ARTICLE 5 OF DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 DOES NOT CONFER ON THE MEMBER STATES THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT IN ITS FIELD OF OPERATION OR TO SUBJECT IT TO CONDITIONS AND THAT THAT PROVISION IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE AND UNCONDITIONAL TO BE CAPABLE OF BEING RELIED UPON BY AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ).
56 CONSEQUENTLY , THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 76/207 OF 9 FEBRUARY 1976 , WHICH PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX WITH REGARD TO WORKING CONDITIONS , INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING DISMISSAL , MAY BE RELIED UPON AS AGAINST A STATE AUTHORITY ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS EMPLOYER , IN ORDER TO AVOID THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ).