natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER MOD FORBUNDSREPUBLIKKEN
Failure to define, as required, the scope of the exceptions referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive No 76/207;
Dato for dommen: 21. maj 1985.
Date of judgment: 21 May 1985.
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder (EØF-traktaten, artikel 119; Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976; Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment of men and women (EEC Treaty, Article 119; EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976; EEC Council Directive 75/117 of 10 February 1975).
Den 13. august 1980 vedtog Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland en lov om ligebehandling af mænd og kvin der på arbejdsstedet, »Arbeitsrechtliches EG-Anpassungsgesetz«.
On 13 August 1980, the Federal Republic of Ger­many adopted a law on the equal treatment of men and women in the work place, the Arbeitsrecht­liches EG-Anpasssungsgesetz (Law aligning labour legislation with Community law).
Formålet med loven var at indføje en række nye paragraffer i anden bog, 6. afsnit, i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, som vedrørte tjenestekontrakter.
The purpose of that law was, in particular, to insert a series of new paragraphs in Book 2, Title 6, of the German Civil Code which dealt with contracts of service.
På grundlag af EØF-traktatens artikel 169 hævdede Kommissionen den 9. november 1983, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-traktaten.
On the basis of Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, on 9 November 1983, the Federal Republic of Germany was alleged to have failed to fulfil its obligation under the EEC Treaty.
Kommissionen fremførte fem klagepunkter, der kunne sammenfattes således:
The Commission formulated five com­plaints which could be summarized as follows:
For så vidt angår det første klagepunkt fandt direktiv 76/207 efter Kommissionens opfattelse også anvendel se på offentligretlige tjenesteforhold.
As for the first complaint, in the Commission's view, Directive 76/207 was applicable to the public service as well.
Dette fremgik klart af artikel 3, stk. 1, hvori der henvises til alle »stil linger og funktioner inden for enhver sektor eller erhvervsgren«.
Article 3(1 ), which referred to 'all jobs or posts, whatever the sector or branch of activity', made this clear.
For så vidt angår realiteten gjorde Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland gældende, at såvel grundloven som lovgivningen om offentligretlige tje nesteforhold udtrykkeligt sikrede mænd og kvinder samme adgangsvilkår og ligebehandling inden for den offentlige forvaltning.
As far as the substance of the problem was concerned, the Federal Republic contended that both the Basic Law and the legislation concerning the public service expressly guaranteed equal access and equal treatment for men and women as regards the public service.
Forbundsrepublikken påpegede, at alle disse bestemmelser direkte fastlagde borger nes rettigheder og gav mulighed for, såfremt rettig hederne tilsidesattes, at anlægge sag ved forvaltningsdomstolene og i givet fald ved forfatningsdomstolen. Derfor var det ifølge Forbundsrepublikken unødvendigt ved lov at træffe foranstaltnin ger til gennemførelse af direktiv 76/207.
It maintained that all those provisions defined rights which were directly conferred on indi­viduals and which gave rise, where they were in­fringed, to a right of action before the administra­tive courts and, if necessary, before the Constitutional Court.
Domstolen indtog det standpunkt, at Kommissionen hverken havde godtgjort eller forsøgt at godtgøre, at der inden for forvaltningen i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland blev udøvet retlig eller faktisk forskelsbehandling på grund af køn.
The Court took the position that the Commission had not established, or even attempt­ed to establish, that discrimination on grounds of sex existed, either in law or in fact, in the public service in Germany.
Den bemærkede endvidere, at grund loven bekræftede mænds og kvinders lighed for loven, og det udtrykkelige forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grund af køn og bestemmelserne om sikringen af den lige adgang til ansættelse i det offentliges tjene ste for alle tyske statsborgere, som umiddelbart fandt anvendelse, sammen med muligheden fordomsstolskontrol, herunder indbringelse af en tvist for for fatningsdomstolen, måtte anses for en tilstrækkelig garanti for gennemførelsen inden for forvaltningen af det i direktiv 76/207 fastsatte princip om ligebe-
Moreover, said the Court, the Basic Law affirmed the equality of men and women before the law, and the express exclusion of all discrimination on grounds of sex and the guarantee of equal access to employment in the public service for all German nationals, in provisions that were intended to be dir­ectly applicable, constituted, in conjunction with the existing system of judicial remedies, including the possibility of instituting proceedings before the
Anvendelsesområdet for undtagelsesbestem melserne i artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 76/207 er ikke klart defineret.
Failure to transpose Directive No 76/207 into national law, as required, with regard to the rules governing the independent professions;
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab disse vedtægter gav anledning til forskelsbehand ling. Af tilsvarende grunde som de for det første an bringende anførte kunne dette anbringende heller ikke lægges til grund, eftersom det, for så vidt angik selvstændige erhverv, måtte fastslås, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ved direktivets ikrafttræden allere de havde opfyldt dets krav.
The Court re marked that the Commission had again produced no evidence from which it could be inferred that these rules actually gave rise to discrimination. For the reasons already given in connection with the first com plaint, this head of the application also appeared to be unfounded, since, as far as the rules governing the independent professions were concerned, the object of Directive 76/207 had already been achieved in the Federal Republic of Germany at the time when the Directive came into force.
Derfor kunne det fastslås, at forbundsrepublikken Tyskland allerede ved direktivets ikrafttræden havde opfyldt direktivets mål, for så vidt angik offentligretlige tjenesteforhold, således at det ikke var nødvendigt at udstede nye retsforskrif ter til gennemførelse af direktivet.
Therefore, concluded the Court, the object of that Directive had already been achieved in the Federal Republic of Germany as regards employment in the public service at the time when the Directive entered into force, with the result that no further legislative provisions were required for its implementation.
I sin vurdering af Kommissionens påstand om, at adgang til ansættel se i det offentliges tjeneste afhang af ansøgernes »eg nethed«, hvilket gjorde det muligt at genindføre forskelsbehandling på grund af køn, bemærkede Dom stolen, at kriteriet om egnethed, således som det anvendtes i grundloven og i den tyske lovgivning, om fattede et stort antal skønskriterier, som var spørgsmålet om køn uvedkommende.
In as sessing the allegation made by the Commission that access to employment in the public service was subject to the 'aptitude' of the applicants, which made it possible to re-introduce discrimination on grounds of sex, the Court pointed out that such criterion of ap titude, as used in the Basic Law and in German legisla tion, covered a wide variety of criteria of assessment which, having regard to the broad range of duties per formed by the public administration, were entirely unconnected with the question of a person's sex.
Det skulle såle des alene afgøres, om egnethedskriteriet, som i sig selv var et objektivt kriterium, i praksis var blevet an vendt således, at der inden for forvaltningen var fo retaget ansættelser, som hvilede på forskelsbehandling på grund af køn.
The question, therefore, to be resolved was exclusively concerned with whether the criterion of aptitude, which was in itself an objective criterion, had been applied in practice in such a way as to lead to appoint ments to the public service based on sex discrimina tion.
Det påhvilede Kommissionen at godtgøre, at den tyske forvaltning havde fulgt en så dan praksis.
The onus was on the Commission to show that such a practice was followed in the German admin istration.
Kommissionen havde imidlertid ikke godtgjort, at dette var tilfældet.
According to the Federal Republic, the relevant constitutional provisions were directly applicable in this area in view of the fact that, in so far as the right to take up an independent profession was sub ject to an admission procedure, admission was in
I sit tredje klagepunkt anførte Kommissionen, at be stemmelsen i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuchs § 611a, hvoref ter det var muligt at fravige ligebehandlingsprincip pet, når kønnet var en forudsætning for udøvelse af bestemte former for erhverv, var utilstrækkelig, da den ikke indeholdt et præcist katalog over de tilladte undtagelser.
In its third complaint, the Commission considered that paragraph 611 a of the Civil Code, which made it possible to derogate from the principle of equal treatment where a person's sex constituted a condition for carrying on a given occupational activity, was in adequate since that provision did not contain a catalo gue setting out precisely the exceptions permitted.
Endvidere havde Forbundsrepublikken ikke i tilstrækkelig grad gjort det muligt for Kommissionen at udøve kontrol i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, i direktiv 76/207.
Moreover, the Federal Republic was charged with fail ing to create an adequate basis for enabling the Commission to exercise its right of supervision which was conferred upon it by Article 9(2) of Directive 76/207.
Forbundsrepublikken gjorde gælden de, at det ikke på nogen måde fremgik af artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 76/207, at medlemsstaterne var for pligtede til ved lov at opstille en udtømmende liste over de efter denne bestemmelse tilladte undtagelser.
For the Federal Republic, Article 2(2) of Direc tive 76/207 did not contain any indication which suggested that Member States were obliged to deter mine exhaustively by way of legislation the excep tions permitted by that provision.
Den i denne hensigt indføjede bestemmelse i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuchs § 611a opfyldte ifølge For bundsrepublikken fuldt ud direktivets krav.
It considered that the relevant provision embodied in paragraph 611a of the Civil Code fully satisfied the requirements of the Directive.
Det var ikke en forudsætning for, at Kommissionen kunne udøve sine kontrolbeføjelser, at der ved lov udar bejdedes en fortegnelse.
The existence of a list established by law was not essential for the exercise by the Commission of its right of supervision.
Yderligere kunne det af Kom missionen opstillede krav ikke gennemføres, da de former for erhvervsudøvelse, som i medfør af direkti vets artikel 2, stk. 2, var udelukket fra anvendelses området for princippet om ligebehandling, i betydeligt omfang var resultatet af konkrete forbud mod ad gangen til visse erhverv, som indførtes som beskyttel sesforanstaltning på grund afarten af det udøvede erhverv, jf. artikel 2, stk. 3.
Moreover, the requirement laid down by the Commission was impractical since the occupational activities excluded from the scope of the principle of equal treatment by Article 2(2) of the Directive were largely the result of specific prohi bitions of access to certain posts, which were laid down for the purpose of providing protection relat-
EF-Domstolens afgørelser gelse.
Case-law of the European Court of Justice
Den påpegede, at ingen af direktivets bestem melser omhandlede stillingsopslag.
It pointed out that none of the provisions of the Directive referred to offers of employment.
Som svar herpå på pegede Domstolen, at det for det første skulle bemærkes, at det ikke umiddelbart var muligt at ude lukke alle stillingsopslag fra direktiv 76/207's anven delsesområde, for så vidt stillingsopslag var snævert forbundet med adgangen til beskæftigelse og såle des kunne begrænse denne.
In re sponse to this, the Court stated that it should be observed, first of all, that all offers of employment could not be excluded a priori from the scope of Dir ective 76/207, inasmuch as they were closely connect ed with access to employment and could have a res trictive effect thereon.
Men Domstolen aner kendte, at direktivet ikke pålagde medlemsstaterne nogen forpligtelse til at indføre almindelige bestem melser for stillingsopslag, og at § 611a i den tyske Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch følgelig ikke kunne anses for en bestemmelse til opfyldelse af en forpligtelse ifølge direktiv 76/207, men måtte betragtes som et selvstændigt lovinitiativ.
However, recognized the Court, the Directive imposed no obligation on the Member States to enact general legislation concerning offers of employment and consequently, paragraph 611a of the German Civil Code could not be regarded as imple menting an obligation imposed by Directive 76/207 but should be treated as an independent legislative measure.
pågældende undtagelser var særdeles forskelligt be grundet, og at adskillige var snævert knyttet til de be stemmelser, som regulerede visse former for erhverv eller virksomhed.
That provision did not intend, or have the effect, of obliging the Member States to exercise that power of derogation in a particular manner, especially since, as it was clear from a comparative study, the exceptions in questions served widely differing purposes and several of them were closely linked to the rules governing certain occu pations or activities.
Men direktivets artikel 9, stk. 2, fore skrev to kontrolfaser, dels medlemsstaternes perio diske undersøgelse af, om undtagelserne fra princippet om ligebehandling var berettigede, dels Kommissionens kontrol, som støttedes på resultatet af denne un dersøgelse. Denne dobbeltkontrol skulle gradvis ophæve de eksisterende undtagelser, som ikke længere kunne anses for begrundet efter kriterierne i artikel 2, stk. 2 og 3.
However, Article 9(2) of the Directive provided for supervision in two stages, name ly a periodic assessment by the Member States themselves of the justification for maintaining excep tions to the principle of equal treatment, and su pervision by the Commission based on the notification of the results of that assessment.
Det fremgik af disse bestemmelser, at det især tilkom medlemsstaterne at udarbejde en fuldstændig og kontrollerbar fortegnelse over de erhverv og former for virksomhed, der var udelukket fra anvendelsen af ligebehandlingsprincippet, og at meddele Kommissionen resultaterne.
It fol lowed from those provisions that it was primarily for the Member States to compile a complete and verifia ble list of the occupations and activities excluded from the application of the principle of equal treat ment and to notify the results to the Commission.
Domstolen udtalte, at Kommissionen på sin side i medfør af de beføjelser, der var tillagt den ved EØF-traktatens ar tikel 155, havde ret og pligt til at vedtage de foran staltninger, der var nødvendige for at kontrollere anvendelsen af nævnte direktivbestemmelse.
For its part, said the Court, the Commission had the right and the duty, by virtue of the powers con ferred on it by Article 155 of the EEC Treaty, to adopt the measures necessary to verify the application of that provision of the Directive.
Domsto len konkluderede, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland på intet tidspunkt siden direktivets ikrafttræden havde vedtaget de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at skabe selv et mindstemål af gennemskuelighed med hensyn til anvendelsen af artikel 2, stk. 2 og 3, og artikel 9 i direktiv 76/207.
At no time, concluded the Court, since the entry into force of the Directive, had the Federal Republic of Germany adopted the necessary measures to create even a minimum of transparency with regard to the application of Article 2(2) and (3) and Article 9 of Directive 76/207.
Endelig gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at For bundsrepublikken Tysklands lovgivning til gennem førelse af direktiv 75/117 om lige løn til mandlige og kvindelige tjenestemænd også manglede den retlige klarhed, som var nødvendig for at sikre en effektiv gennemførelse af direktivet.
Finally, the Commission considered that the legisla tion of the Federal Republic of Germany, which imple mented Directive 75/117 concerning equal pay for male and female civil servants, also lacked the legal clarity which was essential for effective implementa tion of the Directive.
Den tyske regering gjorde gældende, at aflønningen af tjenestemænd og dommere var betinget af stilling og lønramme uden hensyn til køn.
The German Government con tended that the remuneration of public servants and judges was determined according to post and grade, without reference to the sex of the officials con cerned.
Domstolen fandt, at der skulle gives Forbundsrepublikken medhold i dette anbringende, da Kommissionen ikke på nogen måde havde godtgjort, at der ifølge lønsystemet for offentligt an satte i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland udøvedes for skelsbehandling på grund af køn.
The Court was of the opinion that that argu ment should be upheld as the Commission failed to produce the slightest evidence of sex discrimination with regard to remuneration of public servants in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Det fjerde klagepunkt vedrørte Bürgerliches Gesetzbuchs § 611a, ifølge hvilken en arbejdsgiver ikke måtte offentliggøre stillingsopslag, som ikke var »kønsneutrale«.
The fourth complaint concerned paragraph 611 a of the Civil Code, according to which an employer could not advertise offers of employment which were not 'impartial' as regards the sex of the employees.
Kommissionen anførte, at stillingsopslag, da de gik forud for adgangen til ansættelse, var omfattet af direktiv 76/207.
The Commission considered that, since offers of employ ment preceded access to employment, they came within the scope of Directive 76/207.
2. / øvrigt frifindes sagsøgte.
For the rest, dismisses the application;
Ved EFD's afgørelse i denne sag vedrørende artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 76/207 blev der fastsat en vigtig re gel, som kan siges at være en »ændring« af artikel 9, stk. 2, i direktivet. Det hedder nemlig, at medlemssta terne skal udarbejde en fuldstændig og kontrollerbar liste over de erhverv og aktiviteter, der ikke er om fattet af princippet om ligebehandling, og meddele Kommissionen resultaterne.
The EG's decision in this case concerning Article 2(2) of Directive 76/207 laid down an important rule which could be said to be an 'amendment' to Arti­cle 9(2) thereof: Member States must compile a com­plete and verifiable list of the occupations and acti­vities excluded from the application of the principle of equal treatment and notify the results to the Com­mission.
Der er ingen tvivl om, at en sådan liste skaber retlig sikkerhed og klarhed med hensyn til de erhverv og aktiviteter, der er udeluk ket fra direktivets anvendelsesområde.
Such a list creates, no doubt, legal certainty and clarity as regards the occupations and activities excluded from the ambit of the Directive.
Dette gør det muligt for enkeltpersoner at påberåbe sig forskelsbe handling og for Kommissionen at udøve sine tilsynsbeføjelser (se tillige sag 165/87 — Kommissionen mod Det Forenede Kongerige).
This enables both individuals to seek relief from discrimination and the Commission to exercise its power of supervi­sion (see, also, Case 165/87 — Commission ν UK).
Det er ligeledes interessant at bemærke EFD's henvisning til artikel 2, stk. 3, i ovennævnte sammenhæng.
Also interesting to observe is the EG's reference to paragraph 3 of Article 2 in the above context.
Listen over udelukkede erhverv må ligeledes omfatte former for virksomhed, som er udelukket for at beskytte kvinder.
The list of excluded occupations must also include those activities which are excluded with a view to protect women.
Sag 151/84
Case 151/84
Ved lukningen af anlægget i Liverpool aftalte ar bejdsgiveren fratrædelsesbetingelser med den fagfore ning, fr. Roberts var medlem af.
On the closure of the Liverpool depot, the employer agreed severance terms with the trade union of which Ms Roberts was a member.
Det aftaltes, at alle de afskedigede skulle have tilbud om enten et en gangsbeløb eller en førtidspension i henhold til pen sionsordningen, såfremt de efter ordningen i løbet af de fem følgende år ville erhverve ret til pension.
Under those terms, all employees made redundant were to be offered either a cash payment or an early pension out of the pen­sion scheme up to five years before the date of their entitlement under the scheme.
Det te indebar således, at kvindelige ansatte på over 55 år og mandlige ansatte på over 60 år kunne få udbe talt pension med det samme.
The pension was therefore payable immediately to women over the age of 55 and men over the age of 60.
Efter at mandlige ansatte havde kritiseret, at mænd mellem 55 og 60 år efter ordningen blev forskelsbehandlet, ændrede Tate & Lyle ordningen på den måde, at ansatte af begge køn kunne få udbetalt pension straks fra det fyldte 55. år, idet dog kontantbeløbet samtidig blev nedsat. (Artikel 1, stk. 2, og artikel 5, stk. 1, i Rådets di rektiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 og artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978).
Nevertheless, as a result of representations made by male employees against the allegedly discriminatory nature of those arrangements with regard to men aged between 55 and 60, Tate & Lyle amended them by agreeing to grant an immediate pension to both men and women over the age of 55, with the amount of their cash payment reduced. Subject-matter: Equal treatment for men and women — Conditions governing dismissal (Articles 1 (2) and 5 (1 ) of EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976 and Article 7 (1) (a) of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
Fr. Roberts anlagde sag mod Tate & Lyle ved et In dustrial Tribunal og gjorde herunder gældende, at hendes afskedigelse var udtryk for ulovlig forskelsbe handling i strid med Sex Discrimination Act og fælles skabsretten, idet mandlige ansatte efter den nye ordning havde ret til pension med det samme ti år før den normale pensionsalder for mænd, mens kvinde lige ansatte kun havde ret til den nævnte pension fem år før den normale pensionsalder for kvinder. Fr. Roberts var ansat af Tate & Lyle Industries Limited (i det følgende benævnt »Tate & Lyle«) på deres lager i Liverpool i 28 år og blev, da hun var 53 år, sammen med en række andre ansatte afskediget den 22. april 1981 i forbindelse med en kollektiv afskedigelse som følge af lukning af anlægget. Da Industrial Tribunal frifandt sagsøgte den 7. de cember 1981, og Employment Appeal Tribunal frifandt sagsøgte den 30. marts 1983, ankede fr. Roberts dommen til Court of Appeal.
Ms Roberts brought proceedings against Tate & Lyle before an industrial tribunal, claiming that her dismis­sal constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act and to Community law, since under the new arrangements, a male em­ployee was entitled to receive an immediate pension 10 years before the normal retirement age for men whereas a female employee was not so entitled until five years before the normal retirement age for women. Ms Roberts was employed by Tate & Lyle Industries Limited ('Tate & Lyle') at their Liverpool depot for 28 years and, at the age of 53, was made redundant on 22 April 1981, following the closure of the depot, together with other employees, under a mass redundancy. As her case was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 7 December 1981, and by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 30 March 1 983, Ms Roberts brought a new appeal before the Court of Appeal.