Mrs Jorgensen, a specialist rheumatologist, complained about a rule which meant that, if she sold her practice, it would, because of its turnover, be treated as a part-time practice and subject to a cap on the fees it could receive from the Danish national health authorities. She argued that this was indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex, because her lower turnover was the result of her domestic responsibilities, which affected many more women than men. She argued that budgetary considerations could not justify sex discrimination.
Held: Budgetary considerations could not in themselves justify discrimination on the grounds of sex. The aim of the scheme which imposed the cap was to limit the exercise of part-time specialist practice, it being considered that many doctors who worked principally in a hospital and part time in their own practices neglected the former for the sake of the latter.
Measures intended to ensure sound management of public expenditure on specialised medical care and to guarantee people’s access to such care might be justified if they met a legitimate objective of social policy, were appropriate to obtain that objective and were necessary to that end: ‘As Community law stands at present, social policy is a matter for the Member States, which enjoy a reasonable margin of discretion as regards the nature of social protection measures and the detailed arrangements for their implementation (Case C-229/89 Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR 1-2205, paragraph 22, and C-226/91 Molenbroek [1992] ECR 1-5943, paragraph 15). If they meet a legitimate aim of social policy, are suitable and requisite for attaining that end and are therefore justified by reasons unrelated to discrimination on grounds of sex, such measures cannot be regarded as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment (Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraphs 19 and 26, and Molenbroek cited above, paragraphs 13 and 19).’
Citations:
C-226/98, [2000] ECR 1-2447, [2000] IRLR 726, [2000] EUECJ C-226/98
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Discrimination
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162425
