Instantie

Hof van Justitie EG

Samenvatting

Mevrouw Beets-Proper werkte sinds 1969 als secretaresse bij de bank
Vermeer & Co te Amsterdam en, na de fusie van deze instelling met de
rechtsvoorgangster van Van Lanschot in 1972, tot augustus 1982, bij deze
laatste bank. Op haar arbeidsverhouding was van toepassing de Colectieve
Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het Bankbedrijf 1980 en 1981 en de pensioenregeling,
zoals neergelegd in het Pensioenreglement van de Stichting Pensioenfonds F.
van Lanschot. Artikel 3 van dit reglement bepaalt, dat de deelnemers aan de
pensioenregeling aanspraak hebben op pensioen “ingaande de pensioendatum”.
Deze datum wordt in artikel 1 van het reglement omschreven als “de eerste van
de maand volgend op die waarin de mannelijke deelnemer 65 jaar en de
vrouwelijke deelnemer 60 jaar wordt”. Mevrouw Beets-Proper bereikte in
augustus 1982 de zestigjarige leeftijd. Verweerste beschouwde het
dienstverband ingevolge een stilzwijgende beding tot beeindiging van de
arbeidsvoorwaarden van rechtswege geindigd op 1 september 1982, zonder dat
haar ontslag behoefde te worden aangezegd. Bij brief van 2 augustus 1982
deelde verweerster haar mee dat zij recht had op een ouderdomspensioen,
alsmede tot aan de leeftijd van 65 jaar op een aanvullend pensioen. Vanaf 1
september 1982 werd eiseres niet meer tot haar werk toegelaten. Reeds in mei
1981 had eiseres aan verweerster de wens te kennen gegeven om na de
pensioendatum de arbeidsverhouding voort te zetten, eventueel op basis van
gedeeltelijke werktijd. Verweerster deelde haar echter in november 1981 mee,
dat aan dit verlangen niet kon worden voldaan. Bij exploot van 16 september
1982 deed eiseres verweerster in kort geding dagvaarden voor de president van
de Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam met de vordering, weer te worden
toegelaten tot haar werk als directie-secretaresse op verweersters kantoor en
tot betaling van haar salaris vanaf 1 september 1982, zulks totdat de
arbeidsovereenkomt rechtsgeldig zou zijn beeindigd. Eiseres wendde zich voorts
met een klacht tot de Commissie gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen bij
de arbeid, ingesteld bij de Wet gelijk loon voor vrouwen en mannen (Stb. 1975,
129). In haar naar aanleiding van deze klacht kenbaar gemaakte zienswijze van
14 februari 1983 kwam deze Commissie tot de conclusie “dat ten nadele van
aanvraagster direct onderscheid wordt gemaakt tussen mannen en vrouwen bij het
beeindigen van de arbeidsovereenkomst door het hanteren van verschillende
leeftijdsgrenzen. Nadat haar vordering door de president van de
Arrondissementsrechtbank was afgewezen, stelde verweerster hoger beroep in bij
het Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, dat bij arrest van 19 mei 1983 het vonnis
waarvan beroep bekrachtigde, daartoe onder meer overwegende “dat de
uitzondering bedoeld in artikel 1637ij, eerste lid, tweede zin, hier van
toepassing is”.

Het Gerechtshof te Amsterdam heeft zich voor het bestaan van “het nauwe
verband tussen het einde van de arbeidsovereenkomst en de aanvang van het
pensioen” mede gebaseerd op het feit, dat vrouwelijke werknemers in dienst van
verweerster, die op 60-jarige leeftijd worden gepensioneerd, “het haar toe te
kennen premeivrije pensioen opbouwen met 2% van de grondslag jaarlijks,
terwijl daarentegen de mannelijke werknemers voor wie een 65-jarige
pensioengerechtigde leeftijd geldt slechts 1,75%….. in rekening zien
gebracht”.

Van dit arrest heeft eiseres beroep tot cassatie ingesteld bij de Hoge
Raad, die het Hof de volgende prejudiciele vraag heeft voorgelegd:

“Laat de richtlijn van de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen van 9
februari 1976 (76/207) aan de Lid-Staten de vrijheid om onder de
arbeidsvoorwaarden, ter zake waarvan krachtens die richtlijn gelijke
behandeling van mannen en vrouwen moet worden voorgeschreven, niet mede te
begrijpen een uitdrukkelijk of stilzwijgend beding inzake de beeindiging van
de arbeidsovereenkomst op grond van de door de werknemer bereikte leeftijd,
als dit abeding verband houdt met de leeftijd waarop de werknemer aanspraak
krijgt op een pensioenuitkering?

Het Hof verklaarde voor recht dat

“Artikel 5, lid 1, van richtlijn 76/207 aldus moet worden verstaan dat
het de Lid-Staten niet de vrijheid laat, van het toepassingsgebied van het
beginsel van gelijke behandeling uit te sluiten een uitdrukkelijk of
stilzwijgend beding in een op basis van een collective overeenkomst gesloten
arbeidsovereenkomst, die tot gevolg heeft dat de arbeidsverhouding wordt
beeindigd op grond van de door de werknemer bereikte leeftijd, indien deze
leeftijd verband houdt met de -voor mannen en vrouwen verschillende- leeftijd
waarop de werknemer aanspraak krijgt op een pensioenuitkering”.

Volledige tekst

DECISION

1 By an order of 2 November 1984, which was received at the Court on 9
November 1984, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden referred to the Court for a
preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question concerning
the interpretation of Council Directive No 76/207 of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
regards access to eployment, vacational training and promotion, and working
conditions (Official Journal 1976, L 39, p. 40).

2 The question was raised in the course of proceedings between V.M.
Beets-Proper (herinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) and F. Van Lanschot
Bankers NV (herinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) concerning the
compatibility of the appellant’s dismissal with Article 1637ij of the
Netherlands Civil Code and with Community law.

3 The appellant worked as a secretary with Vermeer & Co. bankers of
Amsterdam, from 1969 until that company’s amalgamation in 1972 with the
respondent, and from then until the end of August 1982 with the latter. The
employment relationship between the parties was governed by the collective
labour agreement for the banking sector for the years 1980 and 1981 and the
pension scheme of the ‘F. Van Lanschot Pension Fund’.

Article 3 of that scheme provides that the persons affiliated to it are
entitled to an old-age pension ‘from the date of retirement’. That date is
defined in Article 1 as ‘the first day of the month following the month in
which a person affiliated to the scheme attains the age of 65 in the case of a
man and 60 is the case of a woman”.

Since the appellant reached the age of 60 in August 1982, the respondent
took the view that the employment relationship automatically ended on 1
September 1982 by virtue of an implied condition to that effect in the
contract of employment, without the need for any notice of dismissal. By a
letter dated 2 August 1982 the respondent informed the appellant that she was
entitled to an old-age pension together with a supplementary pension payable
until she attained the age of 65. She has not been admitted to work since 1
September 1982.

6 In May 1981 the appellant had expressed her wish to continue her
employment, possibly on a part-time basis, after the date on which she was due
to retire. In November 1981 the respondent had informed her that her wish
could not be satisfied.

7 By a writ of 16 September 1982 the appellant applied to the president
of the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court], Amsterdam, for an
interlocutory injunction requiring the respondent to allow her to resume her
work as an executive secretary in the respondent’s offices and to pay her
salary from 1 September 1982 until such time as the contract of employment
should be terminated in a legally valid manner.

8 The appellant also submitted a complaint to the Commissie Gelijke
Behandeling van Mannen en Vrouwen bij de Arbeid [Commission on Equal Treatment
of Men and Women in Employment at Work], established by the Wet gelijk loon
voor vrouwen en mannen [Law on equal pay for men and women] (Staatsblad 1975,
129). In its opinion of 14 February 1983 on that complaint, the Commission
concluded ‘that a direct distinction is made, to the disadvantage of the
applicant, between men and women with regard to the termination of the
contract of employment by the application of different age limits’.

9 After the dismissal of the appellant’s application by the
Arrondissementsrechtbank she appealed to the Gerechtshof [Regional Court of
Appeal], Amsterdam, which, by judgment of 19 May 1983, confirmed the judgment
of the lower court on the ground ‘that the exception referred to in the second
sentence of paragraph (1) of Article 1737ij [of the Civil Code] is applicable
in this case’.

10 Article 1637ij of the Netherlands Civil Code provides as follows:

‘(1) As regards the conclusion of a contract of employment, staff
training, the terms of employment, promotion and the termination of the
contract of employment, an employer may not make any distinction between men
and women, either directly or indirectly, for example by reference to marital
status or family circumstances. The terms of employment do not include
benefits or entitlements under pension schemes. The first sentence of this
paragraph shall not apply in those cases in which an employee’s sex is a
decisive factor.

(2) Any clause which is contrary to the first sentence of the paragraph
(1) shall be void.

(3) The first sentence of the paragraph (1) shall not apply as far as
concerns clauses relating to the protection of women, in particular in
connection with pregnancy and maternity.

(4) The first sentence of paragraph (1) shall not apply as far as
concerns clauses which are intended to place employees of a particular sex in
a privileged position in order to eliminate factual inequalities.

(5) The termination of a person’s employment on account of the fact that
ë

employee has invoked the provisions of paragraph (1), whether before a
court or otherwise, shall be void. An employee shall be entitled to invoke the
nullity of the termination of his employment during a period of two months
after he was given notice or after his employment was terminated if his
employer terminated it otherwise than by giving notice. He shall do so by
serving notice on the employer. The termination of employment referred to in
the first sentence of this paragraph shall not make the employer liable in
damages.

(6) When concluding or terminating a contract of employment, an employer
may not make any distinction between married and unmarried persons.’

11 The Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, based its judgment on the existence of a
‘close connection between the termination of the contract of employment and
the commencement of the pension’, and in particular on the fact that the
respondent’s female employees, who retire at the age of 60, acquire pension
rights, on a noncontributory basis, at a rate of 2% of the basic salary for
each year of service, whereas male employees, whose retirement age is fixed at
65, acquire such rights at the rate of 1.75%’.

12 The appellant brought an appeal on a point of law against that
judgment before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, which referred the following
question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Does Council Directive No 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 allow the
Member States the freedom not to include among the conditions of employment in
respect of which equal treatment for men and women must be laid down pursuant
to that directive an express or implied condition concerning the termination
of the contract of employment on the ground of the age attained by the
employee, where that condition relates to the age at which the employee
becomes entitled to a pension?’

Relevant legal provisions

13 Article 1 (1) of Directive No 76/207 provides as folows:

‘The purpose of this directive is to put into efeect in the Member
States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, including promotion, and to vocational training and as regards
working conditions and, on the conditions referred to in paragraph (2), social
security. This principle is herinafter referred to as “the principle of equal
treatment.”

12 Article 2 (1) of the directive provides that:

‘The principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no
discrimination whatsover on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by
reference in particular to marital or family status.”

15 Article 5 (1) of the directive provides that:

‘Application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working
conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and
women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on
grounds of sex.’

16 Article 1 (2) of the directive provides that:

‘With a view to ensuring the progressive implementation of the principle
of equal treatment in matters of social security, the Council, acting on a
proposal from the Commission, will adopt provisions defining its substance,
its scope and the arrangements for its application.’

17 Pursuant to the last-mentioned provision, the Council adopted
Directive No 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
security (Official Journal 1979, L 6, p. 24), which Member States were to
transpose into national law, according to Article 8 (1) thereof, within six
years of its notification.

The directive applies, according to Article 3 (1) thereof, to:

‘(a) statutory schemes which provide protection against the following
risks:

sickness,

invalidity,

old age,

accidents at work and occupational diseases,

– unemployment;

(b) social assistance, in so far as it is intended to supplement or
replace the schemes referred to in (a).’

18 According to Article 7 (1) thereof, the directive is to be:

‘without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its
scope:

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

‘….. With regard to occupational social security schemes, Article 3 (3) of
the directive provides that with a view to ensuring implementation of the
principle of equal treatment in such schemes ‘the Council, acting on a
proposal from the Commission, will adopt provisions defining its substance,
its scope and the arrangements for its application’. On 5 May 1983 the
Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a directive on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
occupational social security schemes (Official Journal 1983, C 134, p. 7). The
proposed directive would according to Article 2 (1) thereof, apply to
‘benefits intended to supplement the benefits provided by statutory social
security schemes or to replace them’. The Council has not yet responded to
that proposal.

20 It is evidentfrom the documents before the Court that Article 7 of
the Algemene Ouderdomswet [General Law on Old-Age] (for the version in force
at the material time, see Staatsblad 1956, 281; for the version now in force,
see Staatsblad 1985, 181) lays down a single pensionable age for persons of
either sex, namely 65.

21 Observations were submitted to the Court in this case by the
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the government of the Kingdom of
Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Commission, in addition to the appellant
and the respondent.

The question referred to the Court

22 The appellant, the Danish Government and the Commission considered
that the reply to the question must be in the negative.

23 In essence the appellant contends that the case before the Court
concerns a difference of treatment not with regard to the conditions for the
grant of an old-age and retirement pension, in respect of which an age
differential may be maintained provisionally under Article 1 (2) of Directive
No 76/207 and Article 7 (1) of Directive No 79/7, but with regard to the
conditions governing dismissal within the meaning of Article 5 (1) of
Directive No 76/207.

24 In the appellant’s view, since the Community legislature intended the
principle of equality of treatment for men and women to be applied as
extensively as possible in employment matters as a fundamental principle of
Community law, the expression ‘conditions of employment’ must be construed
widely so as to encompass the conditions on which a contract of employment is
terminated, whereas the exception to that principle must be interpreted
narrowly and extends to pension benefits only.

25 Accordingly to the appellant, an express or implied condition
concerning the termination of a contract of employment does not cease to be a
‘condition of employment’ because it relates to the age at which the employee
becomes entitled to an old-age pension, since a link between those two fields
is unknown to Community law. Furthermore, such a link may not be deduced from
the Court’s judgment of 16 February 1982 (Case 19/81 Burton v British Railways
Board [1982] ECR 555), which concerned the different questions of the
conditions of access to a voluntary redundancy scheme.

26 The Commission likewise contends that the termination of a contract
of employment, whether by way of dismissal or automatically, is included in
the concept ‘conditions of employment’ and does not fall within the exceptions
to the principle of equality of treatment referred to in Article 2 of
Directive No 76/207 or within the scope of Directive No 79/7. In that
connection it states that in the national legal systems termination of a
contract of employment also falls within the sphere of labour law rather than
of social security law. The fact that the termination of such a contract
coincides with the retirement age cannot have the effect of excluding it from
the scope of Directive No 76/207.

27 The Danish Government, which in essence shares that view, adds that
when implementing Directive No 76/207 in national law the Danish legislature
interpreted the prohibition of discrimination contained in Article 5 (1) of
the directive as meaning that the age at which a person’s contract of
employment terminates for the purposes of retirement can no longer vary
according to the employee’s sex.

28 In contrast, the respondent contends that in order to resolve the
question whether or not the difference in treatment in question is
discriminatory, within the meaning of Directive No 76/207, it is necessary to
take into account, in accordance with the judgment in the Burton case, the
link which the respondent considers to exist between the contractual
provisions applicable in this case and the rule on pensionable age under the
occupational retirement scheme.

29 In that connection the respondent points out that its pension scheme
provides that members of the scheme become entitled to a pension at the age of
65 in the case of male employees and at the age of 60 in the case of female
employees and that the fixing of different ages for compulsory termination of
the contract of employment is directly linked to that difference in
pensionable age since, under Netherlands law, termination of the contract of
employment is the immediate and automatic consequence of the operation of the
pension scheme and the reaching of pensionable age. A contract of employment
for an unlimited period has a maximum term determined by reference to
pensionable age, so that it terminates automatically on the date at witch the
pension becomes payable; it is therefore unnecessary to include an express
term to that effect in the contract. Consequently, as long as pension schemes
provide for pensionable ages which are different for men and women, their
contracts of employment will terminate at different ages.

30 In the respondent’s opinion, it follows from the judgment in het
Burton case that, in view of that link between pensionable age and retirement
age, the difference of treatment accorded to men and women in this case does
not fall within the prohibition of discrimination contained in Directive No
76/207 but is compatible with Community law in so far as the Member States
retain the power, by virtue of the exception in favour of social security
matters contained in Article 1 (2) of Directive No 76/207, to fix different
retirement ages for men and women.

31 It is possible to conclude, in the respondent’s view, that Directive
No 76/207 leaves the Member States free not to include, among the conditions
of employment in respect of which equal treatment for men and women must be
laid down pursuant to that directive, an express or implied condition
concerning termination of the contract of employment on the ground of the age
attained by the employee where that condition is linked to the age at which
the employee becomes entitled to a pension.

32 The Government of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are also of
the opinion that the difference in treatment in question is not contrary to
Community law in view of the link between termination of the contract of
employment and the retirement age fixed in the pension scheme and in view of
the fact that there is no directive providing that such an age differential in
occupational social security schemes is discriminatory.

33 The Netherlands Government also contends that in view of the close
relationship between the date of termination of the contract of employment, on
the one hand, and the date of retirement and the terms of pension scheme, on
the other, any other interpretation could have the effect of forcing employers
and pension funds in many cases to fix the terms of their pension schemes and
the retirement date according to their own perceptions.

34 The Court observes in the first place that the question of
interpretation referred to it does not concern access to a statutory or
occupational retirement scheme, that is to say the conditions for the payment
of an old-age or retirement pension, but fixing of an age limit with regard to
the termination of employment. That question concerns the conditions governing
dismissal and therefore falls to be considered under Directive No 76/207.

35 Article 5 (1) of Directive No 76/207 provides that application of the
principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the
conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women are to be guaranteed
the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex.

36 In its judgment in the Burton case the Court has already stated that
the word ‘dismissal’ contained in that provision must be given a wide meaning.
Consequently, an age limit for the compulsory dismissal of workers prusuant to
an employer’s general policy concerning retirement falls within the term
‘dismissal’ construed in that manner, even if the dismissal involves the grant
of a retirement pension.

37 As the Court emphasized in that judgment, Article 7 of Directive No
79/7 expressly provides that the directive does not prejudice the right of
Member States to exclude from its scope the determination of retirement age
for the purpose of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible
consequences thereof for other benefits falling within the statutory social
security schemes. The Court thus acknowledged that benefits linked to a
nationale scheme which lays down a different pensionable age for men and women
may lie outside the ambit of the aforementioned obligation.

38 However, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle of
eqaulity of treatment, which the Court has reaffirmed on numerous occccasions,
Article 1 (2) of Directive No 76/207, which excludes social security matters
from the scope of that directive, must be interpreted striclty. Consequently,
the exception to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex contained
in Article 7 (1) (a) of Directive No 79/7 applies only to the determination of
pensionable age for the pruposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions
and to the consequences thereof for other social security benefits.

39 In that respect it must be emphasized that, whereas the exception
contained in Article 7 of Directive No 79/7 concerns the consequences which
pensionable age has for social security benefits, this case is concerned with
dismissal within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive No 76/207.

40 Consequently, the answer to the question referred to the court of
Justice by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden must be that Article 5 (1) of
Directive No 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the
Member States the freedom to exempt from the application of the principle of
equality of treatment an express or implied conditon in a contract of
employment concluded on the basis of a collective agreement, if that condition
has the effect of terminating the contract of employment on the ground of the
age attained by the employee and the relevant age is determined by the age –
which is different for men and women – at which the employee becomes entitled
to a retirement pension.

Costs

41 The costs incurred by Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom
and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted
observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in
so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of
a step in the action before the national court, the decision as to costs is a
matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the question referred to it by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by an order of 2 November 1984, herby rules:

Article 5 (1) of Directive No 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that
it does not allow the Member States the freedom to exempt from the application
of the principle of equality of treatment an express or implied condition in a
contract of employment concluded on the basis of a collective wage agreement,
if that condition has the effect of terminating the contract of employment on
the ground of the age attained by the employee and the relevant age is
determined by the age – which is different for men and women – at which the
employee becomes entitled to a retirement pension.

Rechters

Mackenzie Stuart; Everling; Bahlmann; Bosco; Koopmans; Due; O’Higgins