Case C-267/12, Frédéric Hay – any justification for an indirectly discriminatory collective agreement? [judgment 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:823]
For the purposes of Directive 2000/78, which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, can an employee who is entering a civil partnership claim from his employer the same rights as those granted under a collective agreement to an employee who is entering a marriage?
Facts
The claimant, Frédéric Hay, works for the French Caisse Régionale de Crédit Agricole Mutuel de Charentes-Maritimes et des Deux-Sèvres. In July 2007, he entered a civil partnership. He asked his employer for the leave and supplementary payment which an employer grants an employee who is getting married. His request was refused on the basis that he was not entering a marriage and a literal interpretation of the collective agreement expressly provided leave and a payment in the event of marriage.
The matter was litigated. At the Poitiers Court of Appeal, Mr Hay submitted that the refusal to award him the advantages granted exclusively to employees who marry, constituted discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation.
The Poitiers Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr Hay’s submissions. The benefits in this case did not flow from the labour relationship but rather the difference in treatment flows from his statutory civil law status. Under French law, anyone can enter a civil partnership and same sex partners cannot marry.
Question Referred
According to the Curia website, the French Cour de Cassation has asked:
Must Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as meaning that the choice of the national legislature to allow only persons of different sexes to marry can constitute a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim such as to justify indirect discrimination resulting from the fact that a collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry, thereby necessarily excluding from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact?
Outcome. By judgment of 12 December 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:823) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which an employee who concludes a civil solidarity pact with a person of the same sex is not allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, …” The full text is available on EUR-Lex and CURIA.