Case C‑312/17

Surjit Singh Bedi

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland
and
Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(2) — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of disability — Collective agreement on social security — Bridging assistance paid to former civilian employees of the Allied forces in Germany — Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 September 2018

Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability — Bridging assistance granted with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence to a worker who has lost his job — Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme — Indirect discrimination on grounds of disability — Failure to have regard to the high risk faced by disabled people — Limit necessary to achieve social policy aims exceeded — Unlawful

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2(2))

Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the payment of bridging assistance — granted with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence to a worker who has lost his job until he is entitled to a retirement pension under the statutory pension scheme — must cease once that worker is entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for severely disabled persons under that scheme.

In those circumstances, the Court finds that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the effect of Paragraph 8(1)(c) of the TV SozSich is that the income of a severely disabled worker, for the period during which he receives early payment of a retirement pension, is lower than that of a non-disabled worker. It is thus apparent that the rule laid down in that provision is liable to place disabled workers at a disadvantage and so to bring about a difference of treatment indirectly based on disability within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78.

It should also be noted that severely disabled persons have specific needs stemming both from the protection their condition requires and the need to anticipate possible worsening of their condition. Regard must therefore be had to the risk that severely disabled persons may have financial requirements arising from their disability which cannot be adjusted and/or that, with advancing age, those financial requirements may increase (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 December 2012, Odar, C‑152/11, EU:C:2012:772, paragraph 69).

Consequently, the social partners, in pursuing the legitimate aims of providing compensation for the future of workers who have been made redundant and facilitating their reintegration into employment, whilst taking account of the need to achieve a fair distribution of limited financial resources, failed to have regard to relevant elements that concern severely disabled workers specifically.

(see paras 53, 75, 76, 79, operative part)