The 676 new files available to users pertain to 611 cases referred to the CJEU in 1983 and 1984. Many of them had an important impact on EU law, including several cases concerning the interpretation of the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).
In its judgment Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Court addressed the issue of the sanctions in the event of discrimination regarding access to employment. Two women, Sabine Von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann, who applied for two positions for social workers, were rejected because of their sex. The German Labour Tribunal, citing the Equal Treatment Directive, asked, inter alia, what sanctions apply where there is an established case of discrimination in relation to access to employment.
The Court ruled that the directive does not require that a breach of non-discrimination on grounds of sex be sanctioned by an obligation to employ the candidate who has been the victim of such discrimination. However, it did find that, should a Member State decide to penalise a breach of the Directive by an award of compensation, the compensation must in any event be adequate to the damage sustained and must therefore amount to more than purely nominal compensation, ‘in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect.[…]’.
In this case, the Court decided that Directive 76/207/EEC did not oblige Member States to grant a paid maternity leave not only to mothers, but also, as an alternative, to fathers.
The claimant, Ulrich Hofmann, had taken unsuccessful legal action against his employer for having been denied payment during a leave he took to care for his newborn child. This remuneration was typically granted to working women who took additional leave following the obligatory eight week protective period, until the child’s sixth month.
Hofmann argued that maternity leave provisions, which go beyond what is necessary to protect women, would breach the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 if those provisions were only available to women and not to men.
In its judgment, the Court sustained that there was no unlawful discrimination and that German law was not in breach of the Directive. It recognised the rights of Member States to protect a woman’s health in connection with the effects of pregnancy and motherhood, as well as to protect the special relationship between a mother and a newborn child in the period just after their birth. It further declared that leave connected to such efforts could be legitimately reserved to women. The Court acknowledged the discretion that Member States have in determining their maternity leave policies, and ruled that the Directive does not require Member States, as an alternative, to ‘allow such leave to be granted to fathers, even where the parents so decide’.
This case concerned not only equal access and treatment with regard to work, but also the question as to whether claimant can rely on the Equal Treatment Directive in a national court or tribunal.
Helen Marshall, a senior dietitian, had been dismissed from her job for the sole reason that she had passed the retirement age established by the South West Hampshire Area Health Authority, in the UK. The Health Authority policy had set the compulsory retirement age at 60 years for women, and 65 years for men.
The Court of Justice determined that a general policy dismissing a woman who has attained or passed the qualifying age for a state pension, which is different under national legislation for men and women, constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex, in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive.
It also decided that the Directive could be relied upon by an individual against a state authority acting in its capacity as an employer, ‘in order to avoid the application of any national provision which does not conform to article 5(1) of the Directive’. With this decision, the Court also specified that excluded the horizontal direct effect of directives that have not been transposed.
This Court’s decision dealt with sex discrimination and genuine occupational requirements within the context of public safety.
Marguerite Johnston, a police officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was made redundant, following a new requirement for RUC police officers that prevented female officers from carrying firearms. The Chief Constable, who decided on the ban, claimed that his decision was to safeguard national security and protect public safety and public order.
In its decision, the Court stated that acts of discrimination related to the protection of public safety should be examined in light of the derogations from the principle of equal treatment laid down in the Equal Treatment Directive. For the Court, if the sex of the officer constitutes a determining factor for an occupational activity, a Member State may consider the requirements of public safety in order to restrict general policing duty to men equipped with firearms. Nonetheless, these requirements must be interpreted strictly and individuals may rely on the Equal Treatment Directive with regard to access to posts or training to the extent that a national policy exceeds the exceptions laid down in the Directive. Johnston v. Chief Constable was also an important case for the development of the Court’s case law on judicial control as a general principle of law and on the obligation to provide effective remedies at national level for the protection of the rights recognized by (at the time) Community law.
Court’s holdings at the HAEU
Following the agreement signed on 10 July 2014 between the Court and the European University Institute, the Court regularly deposits new archival sets at the HAEU in Florence, where they are made available for public consultation.
To learn more about access conditions and use, click here.
To consult the inventory of the archival holdings of the CJEU, click here.