Johann Buchner and Others v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern.
Date: 2000-05-23
21 Such a benefit cannot constitute an old-age pension within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive, which is a derogating provision, since, according to settled case-law, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle of equal treatment, any such provision must be interpreted strictly (see, in particular, Case C-328/91 Secretary of State for Social Security v Thomas and Others [1993] ECR I-1247, paragraph 8).
23 In that connection, it should be made clear that the temporary maintenance of different retirement ages according to sex may necessitate the subsequent adoption, after expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the Directive, of measures which are indissociable from that derogation and also amendments to such measures (see the judgment delivered today in Case C-196/98 Hepple and Others v Chief Adjudication Officer [2000] ECR I-3691, paragraph 23).
24 To prohibit a Member State which has set different retirement ages for men and women from adopting or subsequently amending, after expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the Directive, measures linked to that age difference would be tantamount to depriving the derogation for which Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive provides of its practical effect (see Hepple, paragraph 24).
25 According to settled case-law, where, pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive, a Member State prescribes different pensionable ages for men and women for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions, the scope of the permitted derogation, defined by the words possible consequences thereof for other benefits, contained in Article 7(1)(a), is limited to the forms of discrimination existing under other benefit schemes which are necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age (see, in particular, Thomas and Others, cited above, paragraph 20, Case C-92/94 Secretary of State for Social Security and Chief Adjudication Officer v Graham and Others [1995] ECR I-2521, paragraph 11, and Case C-139/95 Balestra v INPS [1997] ECR I-549, paragraph 33).
26 That will be the position where such forms of discrimination are objectively necessary in order to avoid disturbing the financial equilibrium of the social-security system or to ensure coherence between the retirement-pension scheme and other benefit schemes (see Thomas and Others, paragraph 12, Graham and Others, paragraph 12, and Balestra, paragraph 35).
28 In that connection, it must be borne in mind that, although budgetary considerations may influence a Member State's choice of social policy and affect the nature or scope of the social protection measures it wishes to adopt, they cannot themselves constitute the aim pursued by that policy and cannot, therefore, justify discrimination against one of the sexes (Case C-343/92 De Weerd and Others [1994] ECR I-571, paragraph 35).
39 It should be pointed out that it is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order, be moved to restrict for any person concerned the opportunity of relying upon a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling in question legal relationships established in good faith (Case 24/86 Blaizot [1988] ECR 379, paragraph 28, and Case C-163/90 Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v Legros and Others [1992] ECR I-4625, paragraph 30).
40 In the present case, it must be noted, first, that on the date when the national rules were adopted case-law of the Court already existed concerning the application of Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive, so that the Austrian Republic was in a position to assess the compatibility of the national rules with the Directive (see, in particular, Case C-9/91 Equal Opportunities Commission [1992] ECR I-4297, Thomas and Others and Graham and Others, both cited above).
41 Second, the financial consequences which might ensue for a Member State from a preliminary ruling have never in themselves justified limiting the temporal effect of such a ruling (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 Roders and Others [1995] ECR I-2229, paragraph 48, Case C-137/94 R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Richardson [1995] ECR I-3407, paragraph 37, and Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 Bautiaa and Société Française Maritime [1996] ECR I-505, paragraph 55).