natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen var alle ansat hos juridiske personer, som hørte til koncernen Royal Shell, og var derfor tilsluttet den af koncernen oprettede erhvervstilknyttede pensionsordning, Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds.
As a result of the Barber judgment, in which the Court held that the setting of an age condition differing according to sex for pensions paid under an occupational pension scheme was contrary to Article 119 of the Treaty, the pension fund considered it was necessary to amend the rules of its scheme by abolishing, with effect from 1 June 1991, the possibility for women to maintain a pensionable age of 55 years.
Den nationale rets første spørgsmål gik i det væsentlige ud på, om traktatens artikel 119 er til hinder for, at en erhvervstilknyttet pensionsordning efter den 17. maj 1990, hvor Barberdommen blev afsagt, opretholder en aldersbetingede for pensionering, som er forskellig for de to køn, når denne forskel er et resultat af den mulighed for at opretholde en pensionsalder på 55 år, som kvinder fik, efter at der — allerede før Barberdommen — var fastsat en pensionsalder på 60 år for begge køn.
The principle of equal pay was one of the foundations of the Community and Article 119 produced direct effects by creating rights which national courts should safeguard. Article 119 being mandatory in nature, the prohibition of discrimination between men and women applied not only to the acts of public authorities but also to contracts between private individuals and to all collective agreements intended to regulate paid employment
Indtil den 31. december 1984 indeholdt de for ordningen gældende bestemmelser en sondring mellem mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere med hensyn til pensionsalderen, som var fastsat til henholdsvis 60 og 55 år.
The national court's first question was in substance whether Article 119 of the Treaty allowed an occupational pension scheme to maintain in force after 17 May 1990, the date of the Barber judgment, a condition as to retirement age differing according to sex where that difference was due to giving female employees the option of maintaining a retirement age of 55 notwithstanding the equalization — prior to the Barber judgment — of the retirement age at 60 years for both sexes.
Denne sondring blev ophævet med virkning fra 1. januar 1985, da pensionsalderen blev fastsat til 60 år for både mænd og kvinder.
The national court's second question was essentially whether the reply to the first question would be different if, as in this case, the maintenance of a retirement age of 55 years for women was not the result of an express choice made by the women concerned but of the circumstance that, when retirement ages were equalized before the Barber judgment, women who had not asked for their retirement age to be raised to 60 years, as for men, were deemed to have opted to maintain their retirement age at 55 years.
Domstolen udtalte, at når først Domstolen har fastslået, at der foreligger en forskelsbehandling med hensyn til løn, og så længe der ikke i ordningen er truffet foranstaltninger til at tilvejebringe ligebehandling, kan artikel 119 kun sikres overholdt ved at give personer i den ugunstigt stillede gruppe de samme fordele, som personerne i den priviligerede gruppe har.
It followed that, once the Court had found that discrimination in relation to pay existed and so long as measures to achieve equal treatment had not been adopted by the scheme, the only proper way of complying with Article 119 was to grant persons in the disadvantaged class the same advantages as those enjoyed by persons in the favoured class.
I forbindelse med denne ændring blev der indført overgangsbestemmelser.
Application of this principle to the present case meant that, as regards the period between 17 May 1990 (the date of the Barber judgment)
En anvendelse af dette princip i den foreliggende sag indebar, at mandlige arbejdstageres pensionsrettigheder skulle beregnes på grundlag af samme pensionsalder som den, der gjaldt for kvindelige arbejdstagere, for så vidt angik perioden mellem den 17. maj 1990, hvor Barberdommen blev afsagt, og den 1. juni 1991, hvor der efter den pågældende ordning bindende blev fastsat en pensionsalder på 60 år for alle arbejdstagere.
It sufficed for the Court to say that, since the obligation laid down in Article 119 to comply with the principle of equal treatment in the matter of pay was mandatory, an occupational
offentlige myndigheder, men tillige for aftaler mellem private samt for alle overenskomster, som kollektivt regulerer lønnet arbejde.
implication, by employees to whom such an option had been granted, scheme could not evade that obligation simply because a discriminatory situation had arisen from an election made, expressly or by
Det andet spørgsmål
The Court held:
Hvad derimod angik beskæftigelsesperioder, der tilbagelagdes efter den 1. juni 1991, var traktatens artikel 119 ikke til hinder for foranstaltninger, som tilvejebragte ligebehandling ved at begrænse fordelene for de personer, der tidligere var priviligerede. Artikel 119 forlanger nemlig blot, at mænd og kvinder får samme løn for samme arbejde, ikke at lønnen skal ligge på et bestemt niveau.
Article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not allow an occupational pension scheme which, following the judgment in Case C262/88 Barber ν Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR1-1889, sets a uniform retirement age for aü its members to maintain in favour of women, as regards benefits payable in respect of periods of service completed after the entry into force of the new rule, a retirement age lower than that for men, even if such a difference is due to an election made by women before the Barber judgment As regards periods of service completed between 17 May 1990 (the date of the Barber judgment) and the date of entry into force of the rule by which the scheme imposes a uniform retirement age, Article 119 does not allow a situation of equality to be achieved otherwise than by applying to nude employees the same arrangements as those enjoyed by female employees.
Disse konklusioner blev ikke afsvækket af, at forskelsbehandlingen som i det foreliggende tilfælde var et resultat af overgangsforanstaltninger, der var indført inden for rammerne af en erhvervstilknyttet ordning, hvorefter der allerede før Barberdommen var fastsat en ensartet pensionsalder for de to køn, dog således at kvinder havde mulighed for at opretholde en lavere pensionsalder end mænd.
The reply to the first question is not affected by the fact that, in a case such as this, the female employees concerned were deemed, in the absence of an express election on their part, to have opted to maintain their retirement age at the level prior to equalization.*
Princippet om lige løn hører nemlig til Fællesskabets grundlag, og artikel 119 kan anvendes umiddelbart og afføder rettigheder, som de nationale domstole skal beskytte.
Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion in Cases C-408/92 and C-28/93 at the sitting of the Full Court on 4 May 1994
Da artikel 119 er ufravigelig, gælder forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling mellem mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere ikke blot for de
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
I den forbindelse fandt Domstolen det tilstrækkeligt at fastslå, at da den i artikel 119 fastsatte forpligtelse til at overholde princippet om lige løn er bindende, kan en erhvervstilknyttet ordning ikke unddrage sig denne forpligtelse blot ved at henvise til, at forskelsbehandlingen er resultatet af et valg, som udtrykkeligt eller stiltiende er foretaget af den arbejdsgiver, som har fået mulighed herfor.
It is not contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty for an employer, following the judgment of the Court in Case C262/88 Barber ν Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR 1-1889, to raise, in an occupational pension scheme, the pensionable age of female employees for future periods of service to the pensionable age of male employees, provided at least that the principle of equal pay for men and women laid down in that provision is fully respected.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
in Case C-408/92, Smith and Others:
Svaret på det første spørgsmål påvirkes ikke af, at den berørte kvindelige arbejdstager i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, såfremt hun ikke foretager et udtrykkeligt valg, anses for at have valgt at opretholde den pensionsalder der var gældende, før der blev indført en ensartet pensionsalder.·
In none of the three situations mentioned above does Article 119 of the EC Treaty entail the obligation referred to by the Industrial Tribunal in its second question.
2.1 det tredje af de af den forelæggende ret beskrevne tilfælde er det - med henblik på gennemførelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet - muligt, omend udelukkende i særlige tilfælde, at tage hensyn til forhold, der intet har at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, og som kræver omgående handling for at sikre, at virksomheden overlever, eller at dens erhvervstilknyttede pensionsordning er solvent.
In the third situation described by the Industrial Tribunal, it is only in exceptional circumstances that account may be taken, when the principle of equal treatment is implemented, of circumstances which are entirely unconnected with discrimination on grounds of sex and which meet an acute need concerning the very existence of the undertaking or the solvency of its occupational pension scheme.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at undersøge disse forhold og påse, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke begrænses mere end højst nødvendigt.«
It is for the national court to examine these factors and to ensure that the principle of equal treatment is not limited more than is strictly necessary.
»Som følge af Barberdommen er det forhold, at der inden for rammerne af en erhvervstilknyttet pensionsordning, for så vidt angår beskæftigelsesperioder efter den 17. maj 1990, opretholdes en pensionsalder på 55 år for en begrænset gruppe af kvindelige medlemmer, som på dette tidspunkt endnu ikke havde nået pensionsalderen, mens pensionsalderen for mandlige arbejdstagere fastsættes til 60 år, i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 119.
In view of the judgment in Barber, it is contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty to maintain in an occupational pension scheme, in relation to periods of service completed after 17 May 1990, the pensionable age at 55 years for a limited group of female employees who at that date had not yet reached the pensionable age, when the pensionable age for male employees is set at 60 years.
Det er herved uden betydning, at denne situation udgør en del af en inden Barberdommen aftalt overgangsordning.«
The fact that this situation arose under transitional arrangements agreed on before the Barber judgment makes no difference."
Præjudiciel •Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder traktatens artikel 119· (Domstolens plenum) om dommens tidsmæssige virkninger ­såfremt det foregående spørgsmål besvares bekræftende ­ kan begrænses.
whether the relevant Community provisions precluded national legislation such as the ABPW from applying different rules for married men and married women as regards calculation of the amount of the civil service pension, and whether those Community provisions could be relied upon by male former civil servants in order to obtain the same treatment as that afforded to female former civil servants;
Første og femte spørgsmål
The first and fifth questions
Ved udateret beslutning indgået til Domstolen den 12. januar 1993 havde Centrale Raad van Beroep i medfør af EØF­traktatens artikel 177 forelagt syv præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring (EFT 1979 L 6, s. 24) og af EØF­traktatens artikel 119.
That interpretation was confirmed in the judgment of 6 October 1993 in Ten Oever. A pension scheme set up by negotiation between both sides of the industry concerned and funded wholly by the employees and employers in that industry, to the exclusion of any financial contribution from the public purse, fell within the scope of Article 119, even where the public authorities, at the request of the employers' and trade union organizations concerned, declared the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at der ved afgørelsen af, om en pensionsordning som den, der er indført ved ABPW, er omfattet af direktiv 79/7 eller af artikel 119, måtte foretages en afvejning af, hvilken vægt der må tillægges de kriterier, Domstolen har lagt til grund i sine tidligere afgørelser.
In order to determine whether a pension scheme of the type set up by the ABPW fell within the scope of Directive 79/7 or of Article 119, it was necessary to analyse the relative importance of the criteria referred to by the Court in its previous decisions.
Spørgsmålene var stillet under en sag mellem G. A Beune og Bestuur van het Algemeen burgerlijk pensioenfonds (herefter benævnt »ABP«).
However, the negotiation between the employers and employees' representatives should, according to that case-law, be such as results in a formal agreement
Alt efter de situationer, Domstolen havde skullet tage stilling til, havde den fremhævet følgende kriterier: I hvilket omfang pensionsordningen er fastlagt ved lov, om der er tale om en overenskomst mellem arbejdsgiverne og repræsentanter for arbejdstagerne, om de fordele, der ydes arbejdstagerne, supplerer de sociale sikringsydelser, hvorledes pensionsordningen finansieres, om den omfatter almindelige grupper af arbejdstagere og endelig forholdet mellem ydelsen og arbejdstagerens erhverv.
On the basis of the situations before it, the Court had developed inter alia the following criteria: the statutory nature of a pension scheme, negotiation between employers and employees' representatives, the fact that the employees' benefits supplement social security benefits, the manner in which the pension scheme was financed, its applicability to general categories of employees and, finally, the relationship between the benefit and the employees' employment.
Det fremgår af de nationale bestemmelser om pension for nederlandske tjenestemænd, at som følge af, at gifte kvinder ligestilles med ugifte kvinder med hensyn til beregningen af den almindelige pension, der samordnes t j e n e s t e m a n d s ρ e η s i o n e η , er tjenestemandspensionen for gifte mænd — for så vidt angår pensionsrettigheder vedrørende tjenestetid før den 1. januar 1986 — konsekvent lavere end den tjenestemandspension, der udbetales til gifte kvinder, der har været tilsvarende indplaceret inden for det offentlige.
Thus, in the present case, the fact that the staff representative organizations in the civil service were involved in the management of the scheme and that in practice there was consultation with them before any change was made to the scheme, did not mean that the criterion held to be relevant in Ten Oever would prevail. That consultation did not lead to the conclusion of a formal agreement laying down the detailed rules governing the scheme, which would then bind the public authorities and the legislature.
Domstolen fastslog, at den omstændighed, at en pensionsordning direkte er reguleret ved lov, utvivlsomt peger klart i retning af, at ydelserne efter en sådan ordning er sociale sikringsydelser.
The finding that the pension scheme was governed directly by statute was without doubt a strong indication that the benefits provided by the scheme were social security benefits.
Med spørgsmålene ønskede den nationale retsinstans i det væsentlige oplyst, om en pensionsordning som den, der er fastsat i ABPW, er omfattet af direktiv 79/7 eller af traktatens artikel 119
Referring to another criterion taken into account by the Court, the Netherlands Government said that the civil service pension provided by the ABP was supplementary to the general pension.
I den forbindelse kunne det bemærkes, at en ordning som ordningen efter AOW er omfattet af direktiv 79/7 (jf. bl.a. ovennævnte dom i sagen Verholen m.fl.).
On that basis, a scheme such as that set up by the AOW fell within the scope of Directive 79/7.
Domstolen tilføjede, at den omstændighed, at en ordning som ordningen efter ABPW direkte er reguleret ved lov, imidlertid ikke er tilstrækkelig til, at den ikke er omfattet af artikel 119.
However, the fact that a scheme like the ABPW was directly governed by statute was not sufficient to exclude it from the scope of Article 119.
Allerede i dommen af 8. april 1976 i Defrenne II­sagen fastslog Domstolen, at til den direkte forskelsbehandling, som kan konstateres allerede ved hjælp af de i artikel 119 angivne kriterier, må man navnlig regne forskelsbehandling, som skyldes lovbestemmelser.
Since the judgment of 8 April 1976 in Defrenne II, the Court had held that among the forms of direct discrimination which are
udbetales i henhold til en lovbestemt social sikringsordning, kan være omfattet af artikel 119.
paid by a statutory social security scheme may fall within the scope of Article 119.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at med henblik på at karakterisere en pensionsordning har Domstolen da heller ikke blot formelt set på, om den er reguleret ved lov. Det er også sket, at Domstolen i stedet har lagt vægt på, om den er fastsat ved overenskomst.
Nor did the criterion relating to the arrangements for funding and managing a pension scheme such as the one established by the ABPW make it possible to decide whether the scheme fell within the scope of Article 119.
Kriteriet om de nærmere regler for finansieringen og forvaltningen af en pensionsordning som den, der gælder efter ABPW, kan heller ikke danne grundlag for at afgøre, om ordningen er omfattet af artikel 119.
On the other hand, considerations of social policy, of State organization, or of ethics or even budgetary preoccupations which influenced, or may have influenced, the establishment by the national legislature of a scheme such as the scheme at issue could not prevail if the pension concerns only a particular category of workers, if it was directly related to the period of service and if its amount was calculated by reference to the civil servant's last salary.
Denne fortolkning bekræftede Domstolen i Ten Oever-dommen af 6. oktober 1993.
The pension paid by the public employer was therefore entirely comparable to that paid by a private employer to his former employees.
En overenskomst mellem arbejdsgiverne og repræsentanter for arbejdstagerne må imidlertid i de nævnte afgørelser forstås som en egentlig aftale.
It followed from all the foregoing considerations that a civil service pension scheme of the type at issue in the main proceedings, which essentially related to the employment of the person concerned, forms part of the pay received by that person and came within the scope of Article 119.
Domstolen fastslog således, at en pensionsfond som den nederlandske ganske vist næsten fuldt ud finansieres gennem bidrag, som indbetales af de forskellige arbejdsgivere inden for det offentlige, og gennem indeholdelser i tjenestemændenes løn, og den forvaltes selvstændigt på grundlag af regler, der ligger tæt op ad dem, der gælder for erhvervstilknyttede pensionsordninger.
No doubt, a pension fund like the Netherlands fund was almost entirely funded by contributions paid by the various civil service employers and deductions from civil servants' salaries and was managed independently in accordance with rules similar to those applicable to occupational pension funds.
Men herved adskiller den sig ikke væsentligt fra visse sociale sikringsordninger, som er omfattet af direktiv 79/7, og som i henhold til lovbestemmelser eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser om bidrag og ydelser også kan være finansieret ved bidrag fra arbejdsgiverne og lønmodtagerne og kan forvaltes på paritetisk grundlag af arbejdsmarkedets parter.
But those characteristics did not substantially distinguish it from certain social security schemes covered by Directive 79/7 which, under laws or regulations governing contributions and benefits, may also be funded by contributions from employers and employees and be managed jointly by employers and employees.
Den nævnte høring fører ikke til, at der indgås en egentlig overenskomst om de nærmere regler for ordningen, som herefter er bindende for det offentlige og for lovgivningsmyndigheden.
The national court asked whether Article 119 precludes application of legislation like the ABPW in relation to the rule for calculating the amount of the civil service pension for a married man.
Den nederlandske regering gjorde i sit skriftlige indlæg endvidere gældende, at pensionsordningen efter ABPW på linje med de øvrige ordninger, der er omfattet af direktiv 86/378, må betragtes som en ordning bestemt for en særlig erhvervsgren. Reelt bestred regeringen således, at nederlandske tjenestemænd i relation til den fællesskabsretlige kvalifikation af en pensionsordning som ordningen i henhold til ABPW kan anses for at være en »almindelig gruppe af arbejdstagere« som omhandlet i Defrenne I-dommen.
The Netherlands Government also stated that the pension scheme under the ABPW, like the other schemes within the scope of Directive 86/378, was to be regarded as a scheme intended for a specific occupational group.
Under henvisning til et andet kriterium, som Domstolen har tillagt vægt, gjorde den nederlandske regering gældende, at den tjenestemandspension, der udbetales gennem ABP, er en tillægspension i forhold til den almindelige pension.
The contested legislation was directly discriminatory against men. The fact that only married men and not single men were placed at a disadvantage by that scheme did not alter that conclusion.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at det under alle omstændigheder — som det følger af Barberdommen - måtte understreges, at det ikke er en betingelse for, at artikel 119 finder anvendelse, at en pension er en tillægspension i forhold til en ydelse, der udbetales i henhold til en lovbestemt social sikringsordning.
It followed that in this case married men placed at a disadvantage by the discrimination in question were to be treated in the same way and have the same scheme applied to them as was applied to married women since, in the absence of proper national implementation of Article 119, that scheme remained the sole valid point of reference.
Ydelser, som udbetales i henhold til en erhvervstilknyttet ordning, og som helt eller delvis træder i stedet for ydelser, der
Since it was in general terms, Protocol No 2 of Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community was applicable to the
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at uanset at Domstolen ikke har defineret begrebet »almindelige grupper af arbejdstagere« siden Defrenne I-dommen, kan dette begreb næppe omfatte en særlig gruppe af arbejdstagere som tjenestemænd, idet disse kun adskiller sig fra arbejdstagere inden for en virksomhed eller en gruppe af virksomheder, inden for en erhvervsgren eller en faglig eller tværfaglig branche ved de særlige forhold, der er karakteristiske for deres ansættelsesforhold med staten, andre administrative enheder eller offentlige arbejdsgivere.
Indeed, it followed from all that had been said above that the only possible decisive criterion was whether the pension was paid to the worker by reason of the employment relationship between him and his former employer, that is to say the criterion of employment based on the wording of Article 119 itself.
Det fulgte således af det anførte, at kun kriteriet om, at arbejdstageren modtager pensionen som følge af arbejdsforholdet mellem ham og hans tidligere arbejdsgiver, dvs. kriteriet om arbejdsforholdet, jf. ordlyden af artikel 119, kunne tillægges afgørende betydning.
treatment under that scheme only by civil servants entitled to claim a pension under the ABPW or persons claiming under them who initiated legal proceedings or introduced a claim before 17 May 1990, in relation to periods of service before 1 January 1986.