## Facts

- Gabrielle Defrenne worked as an air hostess for Sabena, a private airline, and was paid less than male cabin staff performing identical work.
- The parties agreed that the work was identical and that pay discrimination existed during the relevant period.
- Defrenne sought compensation for unequal pay for a specified period between 1963 and 1966, relying on then-Article 119 of the EEC Treaty (equal pay for equal work).
- A Belgian labor court stayed the case and sought a preliminary ruling on whether Article 119 was enforceable in national courts, including against a private employer, and on any limits on retroactive recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 119 EEC conferred directly enforceable rights that individuals could invoke in national courts, including in disputes between private parties (horizontal direct effect).
2. Whether Article 119 covered the type of wage discrimination alleged (unequal pay for identical work in the same establishment).
3. Whether, and to what extent, monetary claims for past unequal pay could be brought for periods predating the judgment.

## Decision

- The Court held Article 119 had direct effect and national courts must protect the individual rights it confers.
- The Court held Article 119 applied not only to public authorities but also to private employers and employment arrangements, allowing workers to sue private employers for direct pay discrimination.
- The Court stated Article 119 had been fully applicable for original Member States from January 1, 1962, and could not be postponed by later political measures.
- The Court limited the retroactive financial consequences of its ruling for legal certainty: claims for arrears were generally confined to pay periods after the date of the judgment, except for claims already initiated or already asserted before that date.
- The Court indicated direct effect operated at least for “direct and overt” pay discrimination identifiable through a straightforward comparison of equal work and unequal pay.

## Legal Principles

- A Treaty provision that is clear, precise, and unconditional can create individual rights enforceable by national courts without further implementing measures.
- Mandatory Treaty rules can bind private actors; equal pay for equal work may be enforced in actions by workers against private employers (horizontal direct effect).
- “Equal pay” prohibits direct wage discrimination where men and women doing identical work in the same establishment or service receive unequal remuneration.
- Even where a rule has been applicable since an earlier Treaty date, a court may restrict the temporal effect of its judgment to protect legal certainty where widespread reliance and major financial consequences are shown.
- Direct enforceability was confirmed for “direct and overt” pay discrimination; more complex forms of discrimination may require additional legislative specification.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized the equal-pay Treaty rule as directly enforceable in national courts against private employers for clear wage discrimination, while restricting retroactive monetary recovery to protect legal certainty, subject to exceptions for claims already raised before the judgment.


Defrenne v. Société Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne Sabena (Defrenne II), Case 43/75, 1976 E.C.R. 455 (E.C.J. 1976)