Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Case C-427/06) [200...

Facts

• Mr. Bartsch, a part-time judge in Germany, received lower pension benefits compared to full-time judges due to rules linking pension entitlements to lengths of service.
• Part-time work was significantly more frequent among women, resulting in a system that disproportionately disadvantaged female judges.
• The case was referred to the ECJ to determine if this situation constituted indirect discrimination under Article 141 EC (now Article 157 TFEU), which prohibits sex-based discrimination regarding equal pay, including occupational pensions.

Issues

1. Whether pension regulations that link benefits to periods of service for judges result in indirect sex discrimination, given the higher prevalence of part-time work among women.
2. How indirect discrimination is properly established and what role statistical evidence plays.
3. Whether the discrimination identified can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and under what conditions.
4. What factors national courts should consider in assessing the proportionality of measures in occupational pension schemes.

Decision

• The ECJ held that indirect discrimination arises where a neutral rule disproportionately disadvantages one sex, even unintentionally.
• In this case, the linkage of pension benefits to periods of service was found to potentially constitute indirect discrimination, as it disproportionately impacted women.
• Statistical evidence showing a smaller percentage of women working full-time was central to establishing this disproportionate impact.
• The Court concluded that such discrimination may be justified only if it pursues a legitimate aim and if the means used are appropriate and necessary.
• The ECJ recognized ensuring that remuneration reflects work actually performed as a legitimate aim but left it to the national court to assess proportionality.
• The proportionality assessment requires national courts to determine whether less discriminatory alternatives could achieve the same legitimate aim.
• The ECJ emphasized that relevant social security context and the characteristics of the judicial service should be considered by national courts.

Legal Principles

• Indirect discrimination occurs when a neutral measure disproportionately disadvantages a group defined by a protected characteristic, here sex, requiring statistical evidence to establish impact.
• A justification for indirect discrimination exists only if the measure pursues a legitimate objective and is appropriate and necessary.
• National courts are responsible for determining whether the means used are proportionate and if less discriminatory alternatives are available.
• The relevant legal standard is set by Article 141 EC (now Article 157 TFEU), prohibiting discrimination in equal pay and workplace benefits.

Conclusion

The ECJ in Bartsch provided a clear framework for identifying and justifying indirect discrimination in occupational pension schemes, emphasizing the significance of statistical evidence and requiring careful proportionality analysis by national courts under Article 157 TFEU.