Ann Cotter y Norah McDermott contra Minister for Social Welfare y Attorney General.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Writing for the Court | O'Higgins |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:1991:116 |
| Docket Number | C-377/89 |
| Date | 13 March 1991 |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
Judgment of the Court of 13 March 1991. - Ann Cotter and Norah McDermott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Supreme Court - Ireland. - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Principle of national law prohibiting unjust enrichment. - Case C-377/89.
European Court reports 1991 Page I-01155
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
++++
1. Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7, Article 4(1) - Increases in social security benefits in respect of persons deemed to be dependants automatically granted to married men - Obligation to ensure equal treatment for married women even if in some cases that will result in double payment of the increases to the same family
(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))
2. Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7, Article 4(1) - Compensatory payments for married men replacing increases in social security benefits - Obligation to ensure equal treatment for married women notwithstanding the prohibition on unjust enrichment laid down by national law
(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))
Summary1. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, on the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, must be interpreted as meaning that if, after the expiry of the period allowed for implementation of the directive, married men have automatically received increases in social security benefits in respect of a spouse and children deemed to be dependants without having to prove actual dependency, married women without actual dependants are entitled to the same increases even if in some circumstances that will result in double payment of the increases to the same family.
2. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7 must be interpreted as meaning that where a Member State has included in the legislation intended to implement that article, adopted after the expiry of the period allowed by the directive, a transitional provision providing for compensatory payments to married men who have lost their entitlement to an increase in their social security benefits in respect of a spouse deemed to be dependent because actual dependency cannot be shown to exist, married women in the same family circumstances are entitled to the same payments even if that infringes the prohibition on unjust enrichment laid down by national law.
PartiesIn Case C-377/89,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Supreme Court of Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ann Cotter and Norah McDermott
and
Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General,
on the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (Official Journal 1979 No L 6, p. 24),
THE COURT,
composed of: O. Due, President, T.F. O' Higgins, J.C. Rodríguez Iglesias and M. Díez de Velasco (Presidents of Chambers), Sir Gordon Slynn, C.N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: J.A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
Ann Cotter and Norah McDermott, by Mary Robinson, Senior Counsel, and Gerard Durcan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Gallagher Shatter, Solicitors,
the Irish Government, by Louis J. Dockery, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by David Byrne, Senior Counsel, and Aindrias O' Caoimh, Barrister-at-Law,
the Commission of the European Communities, by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing oral argument by the parties at the hearing on 18 October 1990,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 29 November 1990,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By order of 27 July 1989, which was received at the Court on 19 December 1989, the Supreme Court of Ireland referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (Official Journal 1979 No L 6, p. 24, hereinafter referred to as "the directive").
2 Those questions arose in proceedings for a declaration that after 23 December 1984, the date on which the directive should have been implemented in the Member States, Mrs Cotter and Mrs McDermott (hereinafter referred to as "the applicants") were entitled to various social security benefits to which married men in the same circumstances were entitled.
3 Article 4(1) of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Anna Adriaantje Vroege contra NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting BV y Stichting Pensioenfonds NCIV.
...79/7/CEE, a la que tenían derecho los hombres que se encontraban en circunstancias idénticas); de 13 de marzo de 1991, Cotter y McDermott (C-377/89, Rec. p. I-1155), apartado 22 de los fundamentos de Derecho y apartado 1 del fallo (derecho automático de los hombres casados a un incremento d......
-
Danila Bonifaci and others (C-94/95) and Wanda Berto and others (C-95/95) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
...con el apartado 24. (39) - Este segundo fundamento de Derecho fue reiterado en las sentencias de 13 de marzo de 1991, Cotter y Mc Dermott (C-377/89, Rec. p. I-1155), apartado 25, y de 24 de febrero de 1994, Roks y otros (C-343/92, Rec. p. I-571), apartado 20. (40) - Esto se desprende de for......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
...de 1990, Barber (C-262/88, Rec. p. I-1889), apartado 12. (10) - Véase, por ejemplo, la sentencia de 13 de marzo de 1991, Cotter y McDermott (C-377/89, Rec. p. I-1115), apartados 20 a 22. (11) - Sentencias de 4 de diciembre de 1986, Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (71/85, Rec. p. 3855), ap......
-
The Queen contra Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission.
...espèce les femmes: voir notamment les arrêts du 4 décembre 1986, FNV, précité, point 22, et du 13 mars 1991, Cotter et McDermott, point 18 (C-377/89, Rec. p. I-1155). (13) Le fait qu' on peut appliquer le principe de proportionnalité en tenant compte du fonctionnement efficace et cohérent d......