Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61989J0345

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 25 JULY 1991. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFRED STOECKEL. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: TRIBUNAL DE POLICE D' ILLKIRCH - FRANCE. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN - LEGISLATIVE PROHIBITION OF NIGHT-WORK FOR WOMEN. CASE C-345/89.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1991 PAGES I-4047

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		SOCIAL PROVISIONS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		376L0207

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		Marshall I Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Health Authority [1986] ECR 723 · Johnston Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651 · Hofmann Case 184/83 Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse [1984] ECR 3047


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Mr Stoeckel, an executive of Suma SA (“Suma”), a company under French law, was charged with employing 77 women to work night contrary to the French Code du Travail (Labour Code). Pursuant to the French Code du Travail, women may not, subject to a number of exceptions, be employed for any nightwork, in particular in plants, factories or workshops of any kind whatsoever. In 1988, Suma found it necessary to adopt a continuous shift-work system in order to avoid layoffs. The company reached an agreement with the unions according to which nightwork was to be instituted for a limited period of time. Subject to approval of the majority vote of the female workers, it was agreed that women should be given the same opportunities as men to work night-shifts; the majority of the female workers voted in favour of the shift-work system.
Suma thereupon introduced the shift-work system and employed 77 women for nightwork. In the criminal proceedings instituted against him, Mr Stoeckel contended that the general prohibition of night work was incompatible with Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC
Of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976, L 39, p. 40).
. The Tribunal de Police, Illkirch, hearing the case, stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court the question whether Article 5 of Directive 76/207 is sufficiently precise to impose on a Member State an obligation not to lay down in its legislation the principle that nightwork by women in prohibited.

Názor soudu a komentář:
“The purpose of [Directive 76/207] is to implement in the Member States the principle of equal treatment for men and women with regard,
inter alia
, to access to employment and working conditions.” “Pursuant to Article 5 of the Directive, application of equal treatment with regard to working conditions means that men and women are to be offered the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex. To that end, the Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that any provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are to be abolished (paragraph 2(a)) and that any provisions contrary to that principle are to be revised when the concern for protection which originally inspired them is no longer well founded (paragraph 2(c)). However, by virtue of Article 2(3), the Directive is to be without prejudice to provisions concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity.” The transformation period for the provision of Article 5(2)(c), according to Article 9(1) of the Directive, had expired on 14 February 1980.
The Court had already held in prior judgements that Article 5 of the Directive does not give the Member States the right to limit the application of the principle of equal treatment and that the provision is sufficiently precise and unconditional so as to be directly applicable (
Marshall I
). Furthermore, the Court has established in its judgement in
Johnston
() that the proviso contained in Article 2(3) of the Directive was intended to protect a woman’s biological condition and the special relationship between a woman and her child, it cannot therefore be employed to justify a different treatment which is based on considerations of the social role of a woman and the like.
The general prohibition of working night shifts is contrary to the principle of equal treatment. The fact that the Code du Travail provides for numerous exceptions from the (general) prohibition cannot warrant a different assessment since the Directive prohibits the laying down of a
general principle
excluding women from undertaking nightwork.
The Court therefore examines whether it can be justified under Articel 2(3) of the Directive. The French and Italian Governments submitted that the prohibition of night-work by women was in conformity with the general aims of protecting female workers and with particular considerations of a social nature relating, for example, to the risks of attack and the heavier domestic workload borne by women. The Court rejects this contention, arguing that “except in the case of pregnancy or maternity, the risks to which women are exposed when working at night are [not], in general, inherently different from those to which men are exposed”. Assuming that the risk of attacks was greater at night than during the day, the Court argues that it can be taken care of by appropriate means without undermining the principle of equal treatment of men and women. In fact, it appears that it is in the first place a matter for the Member State to protect women (and men) against - unlawful (!) - attacks; furthermore, adequate protection could be provided e.g. by offering a bus-service for female workers. “As far as family responsibilities are concerned, the Court has already held that the Directive is not designed to settle questions concerned with the organization of the family or to alter the division of responsibility between the parents” (
Hofmann
).

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
ARTICLE 5 OF DIRECTIVE 76/207/EEC ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN AS REGARDS ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT, VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND PROMOTION, AND WORKING CONDITIONS IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO IMPOSE ON THE MEMBER STATES THE OBLIGATION NOT TO LAY DOWN BY LEGISLATION THE PRINCIPLE THAT NIGHTWORK BY WOMEN IS PROHIBITED, EVEN IF THAT OBLIGATION IS SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, WHERE NIGHTWORK BY MEN IS NOT PROHIBITED.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):