Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2006:456
Date11 July 2006
Celex Number62005CJ0013
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Procedure TypeReference for a preliminary ruling
Docket NumberC-13/05

Case C-13/05

Sonia Chacón Navas

v

Eurest Colectividades SA

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the

Juzgado de lo Social nº 33 de Madrid)

(Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Concept of disability)

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 16 March 2006

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 11 July 2006

Summary of the Judgment

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 1)

3. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2(1) and 3(1)(c))

4. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 1)

1. In proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court. Similarly, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling.

Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances, the Court can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to confirm its own jurisdiction. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

(see paras 32-33)

2. A person who has been dismissed by his employer solely on account of sickness does not fall within the general framework laid down for combating discrimination on grounds of disability by Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

Although the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78 must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life, the concepts of ‘disability’ and ‘sickness’ cannot simply be treated as being the same. By using the concept of ‘disability’ in Article 1 of that directive, the legislature deliberately chose a term which differs from ‘sickness’. Furthermore, the importance which the Community legislature attaches to measures for adapting the workplace to the disability demonstrates that it envisaged situations in which participation in professional life is hindered over a long period of time. In order for the limitation to fall within the concept of ‘disability’, it must therefore be probable that it will last for a long time.

In any event, there is nothing in Directive 2000/78 to suggest that workers are protected by the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability as soon as they develop any type of sickness.

(see paras 43-47, operative part 1)

3. The prohibition, as regards dismissal, of discrimination on grounds of disability contained in Articles 2(1) and 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation precludes dismissal on grounds of disability which, in the light of the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, is not justified by the fact that the person concerned is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of his post.

(see para. 51, operative part 2)

4. Sickness cannot as such be regarded as a ground in addition to those in relation to which Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation prohibits discrimination.

No provision of the Treaty prohibits discrimination on grounds of sickness as such. So far as concerns the general principle of non-discrimination, that principle is binding on Member States where the national situation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Community law. However, it does not follow from this that the scope of Directive 2000/78 should be extended by analogy beyond the discrimination based on the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 1 thereof.

(see paras 54, 56-57, operative part 3)







JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

11 July 2006 (*)

(Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Concept of disability)

In Case C‑13/05,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid (Spain), made by decision of 7 January 2005, received at the Court on 19 January 2005, in the proceedings

Sonia Chacón Navas

v

Eurest Colectividades SA,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges,

Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Eurest Colectividades SA, by R. Sanz García-Muro, abogada,

– the Spanish Government, by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agent,

– the Czech Government, by T. Boček, acting as Agent,

– the German Government, by M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents,

– the Netherlands Government, by H. G. Sevenster, acting as Agent,

– the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent,

– the United Kingdom Government, by C. White, acting as Agent, and T. Ward, Barrister,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and D. Martin, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 March 2006,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation, as regards discrimination on grounds of disability, of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and, in the alternative, possible prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sickness.

2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ms Chacón Navas and Eurest Colectividades SA (‘Eurest’) regarding her dismissal whilst she was on leave of absence from her employment on grounds of sickness.

Legal and regulatory context

Community law

3 The first paragraph of Article 136 EC reads:

‘The Community and the Member States, having in mind fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion.’

4 Article 137(1) and (2) EC confers on the Community the power to support and complement the activities of the Member States with a view to achieving the objectives of Article 136 EC, inter alia in the fields of integrating persons excluded from the labour market and combating social exclusion.

5 Directive 2000/78 was adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC in the version prior to the Treaty of Nice, which provides:

‘Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.’

6 Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 provides:

‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Conclusiones de la Abogado General Sra. J. Kokott, presentadas el 19 de diciembre de 2018.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 19 December 2018
    ...sentencias de 29 de abril de 1982, Pabst & Richarz (17/81, EU:C:1982:129), apartado 18, de 11 de julio de 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456), apartado 40, y de 21 de diciembre de 2016, Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus (C‑444/15, EU:C:2016:978), apartado 86 Véase el punto 77 de las ......
  • Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. G. Hogan, presentadas el 8 de mayo de 2019.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 May 2019
    ...du 17 octobre 2018, Klohn (C‑167/17, EU:C:2018:833, point 29). 13 Voir à cet égard, arrêt du 11 juillet 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456, point 14 Arrêt du 6 décembre 2018, Montag (C‑480/17, EU:C:2018:987, point 34). 15 Directive 2003/54/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 2......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered on 18 June 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 June 2020
    ...for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16). 4 See the judgments of 11 July 2006, Chacón Navas (C–13/05, EU:C:2006:456, paragraph 56) and of 18 December 2014, FOA (C–354/13, EU:C:2014:2463, paragraph 5 See the judgment of 9 March 2017, Milkova (C–406/15, EU:C:201......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 25 November 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 November 2020
    ...el artículo 5 de esta Directiva (véase el apartado 64 de la citada sentencia). 50 Véase la sentencia de 11 de julio de 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456), apartado 51 Véase la sentencia HK Danmark, apartado 13. 52 Véase la sentencia HK Danmark, apartado 62. 53 Véase la sentencia HK......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Conclusiones de la Abogado General Sra. J. Kokott, presentadas el 19 de diciembre de 2018.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 19 December 2018
    ...sentencias de 29 de abril de 1982, Pabst & Richarz (17/81, EU:C:1982:129), apartado 18, de 11 de julio de 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456), apartado 40, y de 21 de diciembre de 2016, Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus (C‑444/15, EU:C:2016:978), apartado 86 Véase el punto 77 de las ......
  • Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. G. Hogan, presentadas el 8 de mayo de 2019.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 May 2019
    ...du 17 octobre 2018, Klohn (C‑167/17, EU:C:2018:833, point 29). 13 Voir à cet égard, arrêt du 11 juillet 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456, point 14 Arrêt du 6 décembre 2018, Montag (C‑480/17, EU:C:2018:987, point 34). 15 Directive 2003/54/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 2......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered on 18 June 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 June 2020
    ...for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16). 4 See the judgments of 11 July 2006, Chacón Navas (C–13/05, EU:C:2006:456, paragraph 56) and of 18 December 2014, FOA (C–354/13, EU:C:2014:2463, paragraph 5 See the judgment of 9 March 2017, Milkova (C–406/15, EU:C:201......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 25 November 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 November 2020
    ...el artículo 5 de esta Directiva (véase el apartado 64 de la citada sentencia). 50 Véase la sentencia de 11 de julio de 2006, Chacón Navas (C‑13/05, EU:C:2006:456), apartado 51 Véase la sentencia HK Danmark, apartado 13. 52 Véase la sentencia HK Danmark, apartado 62. 53 Véase la sentencia HK......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Equidad y principio de no discriminación en el pilar social europeo
    • European Union
    • La profundización de la unión económica y monetaria
    • 30 April 2019
    ...Navas el Tribunal indicó que una 42 Sentencia de 11 de julio de 2006, Sonia Chacón Navas contra Eurest Colectividades SA. , C-13/05, EU:C:2006:456, apartado 43. 43 La Unión Europea ratifica en el 2010 el Convenio, el cual define la discapacidad en su art. 1 como «deficiencias físicas, menta......
  • Sickness Absence and the Court of Justice: Examining the Role of Fundamental Rights in EU Employment Law
    • European Union
    • European Law Journal No. 21-5, September 2015
    • 1 September 2015
    ...the Legal Construction of Disability in the European Unionand the United States’, (2011) 44 Cornell International Law Journal 279, 309.51 Case C-13/05, Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467.European Law Journal© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Volume claimant had been off wo......
  • The definition of discrimination
    • European Union
    • Country report non-discrimination. Transposition and implementation at national level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78: Germany 2020
    • 15 September 2020
    ...para. 41, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62011CJ0335&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre= . Judgment of 11 July 2006, Navas, C-13/05, EU:C:2006:456 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62005CJ0013&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre= . 96SGB IX, 23 December 2016 and Germany, BTHG, 23 December......
  • EU Equality Law: Three Recent Developments
    • European Union
    • European Law Journal No. 17-6, November 2011
    • 1 November 2011
    ...to the Proposal, ‘a proposal for the conclusion of the Convention by the EC has beenpresented to the Council’, (COM (2008) 426, at 2).28 Case C-13/05, Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467.29 Amendment 61. The text in italics has been added by the Parliament.November 201......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT