Brussels, 12/12/2013 (Agence Europe) - Employees who enter into a civil partnership (PACS arrangement) with a partner of the same sex must be granted the same benefits as those granted to their colleagues upon their marriage, where marriage is not possible for homosexual couples. The refusal to grant them those benefits constitutes direct discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This, in essence, is what is stated in a ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU dated 12 December (C-267/12), in response to a request made by the French Cour de cassation, before which the case was brought at the highest level of appeal. The case referred to an employee who had entered into a PACS (civil solidarity pact) arrangement with his partner of the same sex but who was refused days of special leave and a salary bonus on the grounds that, under the collective agreement, they were granted only upon marriage. The French court asked whether the difference in treatment for persons who enter a PACS arrangement with their same-sex partner constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Court says that it does. It notes that the situation of same-sex couples who enter into a PACS arrangement as they are unable to marry (the affair dates back before adoption of the law on gay marriage) is comparable to those of married couples when granting the benefits mentioned. Like married persons, persons entering into a PACS arrangement commit, without a specific legal framework, to living a life together and to providing material aid and assistance to each other. Consequently, the Court concludes that the French collective agreement, which reserves special benefit leave and a salary bonus to people who marry creates direct discrimination based on sexual orientation against homosexual workers (since then, this collective agreement has been amended but, as the amendment does not have retroactive effect, it does not concern those involved in this case). The Court specifies that the fact that the PACS agreement is not restricted solely to homosexual couples does not change the nature of the discrimination against those couples who, unlike heterosexual couples, could not at the time in question legally enter into marriage. (FG/transl.jl)