Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:59:15.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Queen and Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Juliane B. Kokott*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Augsburg

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This summary is based on the French translation of the slip opinion, written originally in English, issued by the Court.

1 Council Directive 79/7 (Dec. 19, 1978), 1979 O.J. (L 6) 24.

2 Article 7 of the Directive reads:

1. This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its scope:

(a) the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits;

(b) advantages in respect of old-age pension schemes granted to persons who have brought up children; the acquisition of benefit entitlements following periods of interruption of employment due to the bringing up of children;

(c) the granting of old-age or invalidity benefit entitlements by virtue of the derived entitlements of a wife;

(d) the granting of increases of long-term invalidity, old-age, accidents at work and occupational disease benefits for a dependent wife;

(e) the consequences of the exercise, before the adoption of this Directive, of a right of option not to acquire rights or incur obligations under a statutory scheme.

2. Member States shall periodically examine matters excluded under paragraph 1 in order to ascertain, in the light of social developments in the matter concerned, whether there is justification for maintaining the exclusions concerned.

Id. at 25.

3 All translations of the judgment are by the author.

4 See Case 262/88, Barber v. Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance Group (E.C.J. May 17, 1990), 4 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wlrtschaftsrecht 101 (1993).

5 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221. On the European Court of Justice and human rights, see also European Community Case Note, 86 AJIL 367 (1992).

6 Additional Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, 1952 O.J. F.R.G., pt. II, at 1880.

7 Christine Langenfeld, Die Gleichbehandlung von Mann und Frau im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht 116 (1990).

8 Judgment of Jan. 28, 1987, 74 BVerfGE 163 (1987).

9 Judgment of Dec. 17, 1991, Eidgenössisches Versicherungsgericht, Lucerne, 19 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift [EuGRZ] 258 (1992).

10 Judgment of Dec. 6, 1990, Verfassungsgerichtshof, Vienna, 18 EuGRZ 484 (1991).

11 Note 4 supra.

12 Agreement on Social Policy Concluded between the Member States of the European Community with the Exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Feb. 7, 1992, Art. 6(3), 31 ILM 358, 360 (1992).