Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to employment pensions
Facts:
Mr Romer worked as an employee of a local authority in Germany. On retirement he claimed for a supplementary retirement pension under an occupational pension scheme.
Mr Romer entered into a registered partnership in 2001 and requested a re-calculation of the pension from that period. The method of calculating that pension was favouring married recipients over those living in a registered life partnership. The issue was whether this was direct or indirect sexual orientation discrimination under the Framework Directive.
Findings of the court:
The pension was "pay" and therefore within the scope of the Framework Directive.
The court applied the Maruko case and decided that although it is for Member States to decide whether or not to provide similar rights for same sex couples to married couples, if a State does provide similar rights, there can not be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation unless it is justified. The difference in pension amounts was direct sexual orientation discrimination.
The court also held that there was no need to find that married couples and same sex couples are in identical situations, it was sufficient that they are in “comparable” situations for direct discrimination.
Implications:
The decision has similar implications to the Maruko decision.