Europa Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as authorizing the determination of a statutory pensionable age which differs according to sex for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and also forms of discrimination which are necessarily linked to that difference. Inequality between men and women with respect to the length of contribution periods required in order to obtain a pension of an identical amount constitutes such discrimination where, having regard to the financial equilibrium of the national pension system in the context of which it appears, it cannot be disassociated from a difference in pensionable age. In view of the advantages allowed to women by national pension systems, in particular as regards statutory pensionable age and length of contribution periods, and the disruptions which would necessarily be caused to the financial equilibrium of those systems if the principle of equality between the sexes were to be applied from one day to the next in respect of those periods, the Community legislature intended to authorize the progressive implementation of that principle by the Member States and that progressive nature could not be ensured if the scope of the derogation authorized by Article 7(1)(a) were to be interpreted restrictively.
LMA The pensionable age in the UK was 65 for men and 60 for women.. The EOC sought judicial review of the contributory state pension scheme, claiming that it discriminated against men on the grounds of sex, by requiring them to pay contributions for 44 years and women for 39 years in order to qualify for a full basic pension. Further, men working between the ages of 60 and 64 paid pension contributions whereas women working between those ages did not. The UK Government argued that the differences in treatment could be justified under the derogation in Art.7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7
Citations:
[1992] ECR I 4297, C-9/91, [1992] EUECJ C-9/91
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160628