You are on page 1of 1


98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 278/15

these provisions, which list exhaustively the types of of occupational conditions to be undertaken in an
sickness insurance allowed, do not cover all potential equal treatment case should be made by way of an
circumstances and are therefore too restrictive, overall assessment of all the factors en bloc or by way
of a point-for-point comparison as in equal pay cases.
Ð Incorrect transposition of the three directives into
national law as regards verification of continued It can be assumed in answering the question that
sickness insurance cover the transformationsmodel' (reorganisation scheme
for medical specialists' practices, hereinafter the
Whilst, under Article 3 of Directives 90/364/EEC and reorganisation scheme')/agreement assessed en bloc
90/365/EEC and under Article 4 of Directive 93/96/ and as a whole is neutral as regards sex in both its
EEC, a right of residence can be revoked when the effect and purpose.
person concerned no longer meets the conditions laid
down, in particular that regarding sickness insurance
cover, that provision cannot be construed so as It can further be assumed that the reorganisation
to allow active and constant monitoring by the scheme/agreement contains provisions which, viewed
authorities responsible for issuing residence permits in isolation, result in sex bias, inasmuch as it is noted
of the position of the beneficiaries of Directives 90/ that that biased effect, with regard to some provisions,
364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC. Any other is predominantly experienced by female medical
approach would be contrary, not only to those specialists and, with regard to other provisions, is
Directives, but, more fundamentally, to the principles predominantly experienced by male medical
embodied in Article 8a of the EC Treaty. specialists.

(1) Council Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of residence (OJ 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, a
L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26). ruling is requested as to how far considerations
(2) Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for
relating to budgetary safeguards, savings and planning
employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their
occupational activity (OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28). as regards medical practices may be treated as
(3) Council Directive 93/96/EEC on the right of residence for objective and valid considerations such as to make it
students (OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59). acceptable that proportionately more women than
men are affected by the provision in question.

3. In view of the applicant's age (she was born in 1939),
can the consideration for goodwill which the applicant
should obtain when she gives up her practice on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret reaching retirement age be likened to an employee's
by a decision of that court of 4 June 1998 in the case of pension savings?
Birgitte Jùrgensen v. Foreningen af Speciallñger and Syge-
sikringens Forhandlingsudvalg
(Case C-226/98) 4. If the Court of Justice replies to question 3 in
the affirmative, clarification is sought as to the
(98/C 278/24) repercussions for the answer to question 1 if one
aspect of the disadvantage to which the provision in
question gives rise is lower consideration for goodwill
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the when a practice is relinquished, and thereby worse
European Communities by order of the éstre Landsret pension insurance, if account is taken of the fact that
(Eastern Regional Court) of 4 June 1998, which was in Case C-297/93 Grau-Hupka [1994] ECR 5535,
received at the Court Registry on 24 June 1998, for a paragraph 27, it was held that the Member States are
preliminary ruling in the case of Birgitte Jùrgensen v. Fore- not obliged to grant advantages in respect of old-age
ningen af Speciallñger and Sygesikringens Forhandlings- pension schemes to persons who have brought-up
udvalg on the following questions: children or to provide benefit entitlements where
employment has been interrupted in order to bring up
1. The Court of Justice is asked to clarify how
an assessment as to whether there is indirect
discrimination on grounds of sex should be (1) On the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
undertaken in a case concerning equal treatment under men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) of 9 February 1976 training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39,
14.2.1976, p. 40).
and Council Directive 86/613/EEC (2) of 11 December
(2) On the application of the principle of equal treatment between
1986. men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture,
in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-
employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (OJ
In view of the fact that under the settled case-law of L 359, 19.12.1986, p. 56).
the Court of Justice in equal pay cases a comparison
should be made on a point-for-point-basis,
clarification is requested as to whether the comparison