Ar nacionalinėje teisėje nustatytas skirtingas moterų ir vyrų pensinis amžius neprieštarauja Europos Sąjungos teisėje įtvirtintam vienodo požiūrio į moteris ir vyrus principui?
Bujanauskaitė, Vita |
Vienodo požiūrio į moteris ir vyrus principas yra fundamentalus ES teisės principas. Šio darbo tikslas atsakyti į klausimą, ar nacionalinėje teisėje nustatytas skirtingas moterų ir vyrų pensinis amžius neprieštarauja ES teisėje įtvirtintam vienodo požiūrio į moteris ir vyrus principui. Iš pateiktos vienodo požiūrio principo, įtvirtinto ES pirminėje ir antrinėje teisėje, apžvalgos matyti, kad nors iš pradžių iš principas buvo nustatytas tik darbo užmokesčio srityje, bet palaipsniui apėmė ir daugelį kitų visuomenės gyvenimo sričių, taip pat ir socialinės apsaugos sritį, kuriai šiame darbe skiriamas pagrindinis dėmesys. Vienintelė vienodo požiūrio į moteris ir vyrus principo išimtis dabar nustatyta Direktyvos 79/7/EEB 7 straipsnio 1 dalies a punkte, pagal kurį valstybės narės gali numatyti skirtingą pensinį amžių senatvės ir ištarnauto laiko pensijoms gauti ir su tuo susijusias galimybes gauti kitas išmokas. Šia išimtimi ES teisės aktų leidėjas siekė leisti valstybėms narėms išlaikyti nacionalinės teisės nuostatas, įtvirtinančias palankesnę moterų situaciją pensijų srityje ir taip kompensuoti joms tenkančią didesnę šeiminio gyvenimo naštą. Teisingumo Teismas savo praktikoje pabrėžia vienodo principo išskirtinę reikšmę ir nurodo, kad Direktyvoje 79/7/EEB nustatyta išimtis turi būti aiškinama siaurinamai. Nors anksčiau analogiška išimtis buvo nustatyta taip pat Direktyvos 86/378/EEB 9 straipsnyje, tačiau, atžvelgiant į Teisingumo Teismo praktiką, buvo panaikinta. Iš Direktyvoje 79/7/EEB pateiktos vienodo požiūrio apibrėžties aiškėja, kad šis principas draudžia tiek tiesioginę, tiek netiesioginę diskriminaciją. Remiantis teismo praktika, analizuojami šias diskriminacijos rūšis pateisinantys pagrindai. Toliau pateikiama Teisingumo Teismo praktikos, susijusios su Direktyvoje 79/7/EEB nustatyta išimtimi, analizė. Galiausiai daroma išvada, kad nors valstybės narės gali pasinaudoti Direktyvos 79/7/EEB išimtimi ir nustatyti skirtingą vyrų ir moterų pensinį amžių, tačiau tik įstatymais nustatytose socialinės apsaugos sistemose. Skirtingas pensinis amžius yra suderinamas su vienodo požiūrio principu tik tada, kai valstybės narės laikosi Teisingumo Teismo praktikoje nustatytų reikalavimų.
The principle of equal treatment for men and women is a fundamental EU law principle, the importance of which has been stressed in the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union not once. The aim of this paper is to find out the answer to the question, whether difference between pensionable age for men and women, determined by national law, is compatible with the principle of equal treatment for men and women laid down by the EU law. In order to find an answer to the raised question, first of all, a brief review of evolution of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the European Union primary and secondary legislation is presented, and impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the further development of this principle is analyzed. It is important to find the answer to the question, whether and under what circumstances the legislature of the European Union permits deviation from this principle. After the EU secondary legislation relevant to this field has been analyzed, a conclusion has been drawn that the derogation from the principle of equal treatment is laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC. The answer is provided to the question, what aims the European Union legislature has had by this Directive, in particular by derogation laid down in it concerning difference in pensionable age. Further on, the practice of the Court of Justice is analyzed, and also criteria identified which are applied by the Court of Justice during assessment whether a particular national discriminating procedure falls into the area of derogation of Directive 79/7/EEC. To find the answer to the legal question raised, it is important to find out whether the unequal treatment always means discrimination and what justification of unequal treatment might be. And finally, the differences in pension systems of the Member States, and reasons for determination of different retirement age for men and women are analyzed. Having conducted the review of the EU primary and secondary legislation, by which the principle of equal treatment is laid down, we can see that although at first this principle has been determined for matters of wages only, it gradually started to cover a great number of other public life fields as well, amongst them – social security matters, on which this paper mainly focuses. The only one derogation from the principle of equal treatment for men and women is currently laid down by Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC which permits the Member States to provide different pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits. By this derogation, the legislature of the European Union has sought to permit the Member States to preserve national provisions, consolidating the more favourable for women pension granting situation, thus compensating greater burden of family matters falling upon them. Although the Member States possess the competence to execute social security politics and foresee its measures, still the Court of Justice in its practice every time emphasizes that doing this, the States should respect the principle of equal treatment. The Court of Justice accentuates the exceptional meaning of this principle and points out that the derogation laid down in Directive 79/7/EEC should be interpreted strictly. Previously, the analogous derogation has been laid down in Article 9 of Directive 86/378/EEC as well, still, taking into consideration the practice of the Court of Justice, according to which the pensions of professional systems should be considered wages and therefore different pensionable age violates the principle of equal payment for equal work for employees of both sexes, it was abolished. Thus, the Member States, taking advantage of the derogation laid down in Directive 79/7/EEC, shall have the right to determine different pensionable age for men and women only in the statutory social security schemes, but not in the occupational social security schemes. Further on, whereas the practice of the Court of Justice plays an important role when developing the principle of equal treatment, the practice of this Court is analyzed related to the derogation laid down in Directive 79/7/EEC concerning determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits. On the basis of the analysis, it may be maintained that a national law norm of discriminating character may be justified only then when it is necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages for men and women determined in the national legislation, and is objectively necessary for preserving the financial balance of the social security system and ensuring consistency of pension system and other benefit systems. Referring to the definition of equal treatment determined in Directive 79/7/EEC, it may be maintained that this principle prohibits any discrimination, both direct type and indirect one. On the basis of the practice of the Court of Justice, the elements justifying the direct and indirect discrimination are analyzed, paying more attention to the situation of indirect discrimination. On the basis of court practice, a conclusion is drawn that unequal treatment should be considered prohibited sexual discrimination only then, when it cannot be justified by objective reasons that have nothing in common with sexual discrimination, and the chosen measures should be proper, necessary and in proportion with the implementation of the purpose of a particular measure. Situations that occur because of direct sexual discrimination caused by difference in pensionable age are reviewed in brief. When assessing the compatibility between different pensionable age and the principle of equal treatment, it shall be necessary to take into consideration the goals of the legislature of the Community stipulated in the Directive 79/7/EEC. Therefore the conclusion should be drawn that the measures, such as difference in age of retirement, by which the Member States sought to ensure more favourable for women situation in the social security systems, did not assist substantially in implementation of the principle of equal treatment and elimination of differences in men and women situations, even on the contrary, it allowed occurrence of situations of direct sexual discrimination. Therefore it should be necessary to equalize pensionable age for men and women. The factual gender equality might be ensured only by strengthening participation of women in the labour market and encouraging men to participate more actively in family tasks distribution. On the basis of the conducted research, a conclusion has been drawn that, as the derogation from the principle of equal treatment is laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC, the Member States in principle may take advantage of this derogation, and determine different pensionable age for men and women by national legislation. Still, different age of retirement is compatible with the principle of equal treatment for men and women only then, when Member States during determination of this age follow requirements set forth in the practice of the Court of Justice.