You are on page 1of 2

C 227/4

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay JUDGMENT OF THE COURT within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and the

Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis

an overall assessment of all the consideration granted to employees but also in the light of each aspect of pay taken in isolation;

of

(First Chamber)

of 28 June 2001

in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from of the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut

discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are classified in the same job category under the collective agreement

governing their employment is not in itself sufficient for concluding that the two employees concerned are performing the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 Retire-

the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of ment pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability

the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst others that this criterion is met;

national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen- dants (Inasti) ( 1 )

— the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim

pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation of effects — Serious breach of Community law)

— as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving

lower pay than paid by the employer to a colleague of the

other

sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen

comparator; the employer may then not only dispute the fact

equal

put

forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination

that the conditions for the application of the principle of pay for men and women are met in the case but also

(2001/C 227/06)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)

based on sex, to justify the difference in pay; In Case C-118/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du travail de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a preliminary

ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gervais Larsy and Institut national d’assurances sociales pour

application to the employees concerned, provided that

they travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — on the interpretation of

constitute objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination based on sex and in conformity with the principle of pro-

portionality; employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members

Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to

— a difference in pay is capable of being justified by circumstances not taken into consideration under the collective agreement

of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7), and on the conditions governing a Member State’s liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:

once the employment contract is being performed, such as a M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) difference in the individual work capacity of the persons and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; P. Léger; Advocate General; H. von

concerned or in the effectiveness of the work of a specific

Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a

employee compared with that of a colleague. judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it has ruled:

— in the case of work paid at time rates, a difference in pay awarded, at the time of their appointment, to two employees of different sex for the same job or work of equal value cannot be justified by factors which become known only after the employees concerned take up their duties and which can be assessed only

( 1 ) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

1. Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, does not apply to an application for review of a retirement pension, the amount of which has been limited under an anti-overlapping rule applicable in a Member State, on the ground that the person receiving that pension has also been awarded a retirement pension paid by the competent institution of another Member State, where the application for review is based on provisions other than those in Regulation No 1248/92.

11.8.2001

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/5

2. The application by the competent institution of a Member State 1.

Declares that by not implementing within the prescribed period

of Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to a request for review of a retirement pension, thus limiting the comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament retroactivity of the review to the detriment of the person and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council concerned, constitutes a serious breach of Community law if Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions those provisions are not applicable to the application in question laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in

and if it follows from a judgment delivered by the Court of Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting Justice before the decision by the competent institution that the activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil institution wrongly applied and anti-overlapping rule of that its obligations under that directive;

Member State, and where it cannot be inferred from

judgment that the retroactive effect of such a review could be limited.

that

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

t 2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. ( 1 ) OJ

( 1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.

( 1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.

) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000. ( 1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000. JUDGMENT OF

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 3 July 2001

of 21 June 2001 in Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communi- ties v Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )

in Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communi- ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —

Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive

89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid

by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)

down

(2001/C 227/07)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:

P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing

to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative

action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Eward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;

R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in

which it:

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 93(2), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2), second subparagraph, EC) — Obligation to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter schemes — Impossible to put into effect)

(2001/C 227/08)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by G. van Gerven and K. Coppenholle) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the periods prescribed for under the Maribel bis/ter scheme which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of 4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under the Maribel bis/ter scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25), notified to it on 20 December 1996, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC) and Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter- man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2001, in which it: