Category: European

Gisela Rummler v Dato-Druck: ECJ 1 Jul 1986

In general Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women does not prohibit the use, in a job classification system as referred to in the second paragraph of article 1, for the purpose of determining rates of pay, of the criterion of muscular demand or muscular effort or that of the heaviness of the work if, in view of the nature of the tasks involved, the work to be performed does require the use of a certain degree of physical strength, so long as the system as a whole, by taking into account other criteria, precludes any discrimination on grounds of sex. In particular, it follows from the directive that: (a) the criteria governing pay-rate classification must ensure that work which is objectively the same attracts the same rate of pay whether it is performed by a man or a woman; (b) the use of values reflecting the average performance of workers of one sex as a basis for determining the extent to which work makes demands or requires effort or whether it is heavy constitutes a form of discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to the directive; (c) in order for a job classification system not to be discriminatory as a whole, it must, in so far as the nature of the tasks carried out in the undertaking permits, take into account criteria for which workers of each sex may show particular aptitude.

Citations:

[1987] ICR 774, C-237/85

Cited by:

Cited – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134165

Anterist v Credit Lyonnais: ECJ 24 Jun 1986

Europa Since article 17 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 embodies the principle of the parties ‘autonomy to determine the court or courts with jurisdiction, the third paragraph of that provision must be interpreted in such a way as to respect the parties’ common intention when the contract was concluded. Therefore, if an agreement conferring jurisdiction is to be regarded as having been ‘concluded for the benefit of only one of the parties’, the common intention to confer an advantage on one of the parties must be clear from the terms of the jurisdiction clause or from all the evidence to be found therein or from the circumstances in which the contract was concluded. It follows that an agreement conferring jurisdiction is not to be regarded as falling within the third paragraph of article 17 of the convention where all that is established is that the parties have agreed that a court or the courts of the contracting state in which that party is domiciled are to have jurisdiction.

Citations:

C-22/85

European

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134032

Nippon Seiko KK v Council of The European Communities: ECJ 17 Dec 1984

ECJ Application for interim measures – suspension of operation of a measure -interim measures – conditions for granting – weighing up all the interests concerned (EEC treaty, arts 185 and 186; rules of procedure, art. 83 (2)). Suspension of operation and other interim measures cannot be considered unless the factual and legal circumstances relied upon to obtain them establish a prima facie case for granting them. In addition there must be urgency in the sense that it is necessary for the measures to be issued and to take effect before the decision of the court on the substance of the case in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking them. Finally, they must be provisional in the sense that they do not prejudge the decision on the substance of the case.

Citations:

C-258/84

European

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133979

Texas Instruments v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Mitte (Judgment): ECJ 14 Nov 1985

Common customs tariff – alteration or suspension of import duties – powers of the council – limits (eec treaty, art. 28; council regulation no 2841/79) although article 28 of the EEC treaty, which concerns autonomous alterations or suspensions of common customs tariff duties, leaves the council considerable discretion, it is for the court to ascertain whether or not the manner in which the council has carried out the duties thereby entrusted to it constitutes a misuse of power or gives rise to discrimination.

Citations:

C-227/84

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133967

Stinnes AG v Hauptzollamt Kassel: ECJ 12 Dec 1985

Europa European Communities ‘ own resources – post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – article 8 of regulation no 1697/79 – a given action for recovery – meaning – combining of several separate actions for recovery -permissibility – conditions (Council Regulation no 1697/79, art. 8). The term ‘a given action for recovery’ in article 8 of council regulation no 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import or export duties must be interpreted as referring to each individual import or export transaction. That interpretation does not preclude the practice of combining several separate actions for recovery in a single recovery order provided that the amount concerned in each action exceeds the amount specified in the first paragraph of the aforesaid article 8.

Citations:

C-214/84

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133957

AS-Autoteile Service GmbH v Pierre Malhe (Judgment): ECJ 4 Jul 1985

The particular areas which fall under Article 16, certain disputes regarding tenancies, companies, registers, industrial property and the enforcement of judgments, are matters which, because of their particular difficulty or complexity, require that the court having jurisdiction should be particularly familiar with the relevant national law.

Judges:

Lenz AG

Citations:

Case 220/84, [1985] ECR 2267

Statutes:

Lugano Convention

Cited by:

Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133962