Occupational social security schemes (Chapter 2 of Directive 2006/54)

AuthorPanagiota Petroglou
6 Occupational social security schemes (Chapter 2 of Directive 20 06/54)
6.1 General (legal) context
6.1.1 Surveys and reports on the practical difficulties linked to occupational and/or
statutory social security issues
In a survey cond ucted in 2012 about Act 3863/2010 and the occupational social security
schemes, Sophia Koukoulis-Spiliotopoulos405 pointed out that the Act, although coverin g
both statutory and occupational social security schemes, ignores the di stinction between
ΡoccupationalΣ and ΡstatutoryΣ and EU gender equal ity law in general. She gave examples
of the provisions of the Act that create confusion; she also referred to the relevant remarks
of t he N ational Committee of Human Rights and of the Scientific Service of Parliament
(which checks the conformity of bill s with the Constitution, ratified international treati es
and EU law) on the relevant bill. The au thor deplored the prevailing confu sion concerning
the c oncept o f Ρoccup ational s ocial security schemesΣ and the field of application of the
relevant E U law in Greece. She found that this confusion is accentuated by the lack of
precision and clarity of Greek social security legislation which, in recent years, has
undergone numerous unpredictable, complex, contradictory and mutually exclusive
amendments, often with a retroactive effect, creating unsafety and in security, in particular
in a society hit as hard by the economic crisis as the Greek one has been.
Another sur vey on occupational social security schemes under EU law was pub lished in
2016 by E. Morayianni on the occasion of judgment No. 4156/2015 of the Athens
Administrative Court of Appeal (ACA).406 This case concerned the s ocial security scheme
TAP-ETVA, which granted pensions to employe es of the former Greek Bank of Industrial
Development (ETVA). Subsequently, this fund was affiliated to the general social security
scheme for private sector employees (IKA-ETAM). However, the retirement benefits
granted by it continued to be governed by its own statutes.
The case was brought by a father of three minor children. He pleaded that the retirement
conditions provided for mothers of three minor chi ldren were more favourable than those
applicable to fathers of three minor children who, in order to be entitled to a pension, had
to comply with the additional requirements of being widowers or divorced (in the latter
case having been granted the custody of the children by a judicial judgment). He
consequently claimed that the above different treatment resulted in discrimination on the
ground of sex to the det riment of fathers of three minor childr en, like himself, an d asked
the court to grant him the pension, although he was neither a widower nor divorced.
The court found discrimination in b reach of the Greek Constitut ion but refused to apply
the levelling-up norm and rejected the claim. It did not examine and did not respond to
the claimantΣs allegations that the above discrimination was in breach of Article 157 TFEU
as the fund constit uted an occupational social security scheme according to the well-
established case law of the CJEU. In particular, he pleaded that all three requirements set
by the CJEU case law were satisfied: (i) the scheme c overed a particular c ategory of
employees, i.e. the employees of the former ETVA bank; (ii) the pension granted by it was
calculated on the basis of the employeeΣs years of service at the bank; (iii) the sum of the
pension was calculated on the basis of the employeeΣs final salary before r etirement.
According to the author, by omitting to examine and reply to these all egations, th e ACA
failed to apply the EU law.
405 Koukoulis-Spiliotopoulos, S. (2012), ‘. 3896/2010  ΔΕ   
Ν   Σ (Act 3896/2010 and occupational schemes The confusion is heightened),
    () (Social Security δaw Review), pp. 27-39.
406 Morayianni, E. (2016), Ρ           
    .       4156/2015Σ (ΡThe
matter of the violation of the gender equality principle through social security privileges in favour of
women, Comments on Athens Administrative Court of Appeal judgment No. 4156/2015Σ), E
   () (Social Security δaw Review) 2016, pp. 416 et s.

To continue reading

Request your trial

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