Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 20 November 1990

1 Original language: French.

2 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 (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

3 Moniteur beige, 27.8.1986, p. 11825.

4 Moniteur beige, 11.2.1987, p. 1817.

5 Moniteur belge, 2.8.1986, p. 10854.

6 The relevant provisions use the expression mean daily remuneration; see the reasoned opinion in Annex I to the application.

7 The amount of that allowance is BFR 10505 according to the Commission (application, p. 6) and BFR 10920 according to the Belgian Government (defence, p. 2).

8 Reasoned opinion issued on 20 June 1988, p. 7 of Annex I to the application.

9 Case 96/80 Jenkim v Kingsgate [1981] ECR 911; Case 170/84 Bitka v Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607; Case 171/88 Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebäudereinigung [1989] ECR 2743; Case C-102/88 Ruzius-Wilbrink v Bedrijfsvereniging voor Overheidsdiensten [1989] ECR 4311; and Case C-33/89 Kowalska v Hamburg [1990] ECR I-2591.

10 Case 170/84, cited above, operative pan and paragraph 30.

11 Case 30/85 Teuiing v Bedrìjfsvereniging voor de Chemische lndustrie[ 1987] ECK 2497.

12 Paragraph 13.

13 Case 30/85, cited above, paragraph 16.

14 Paragraph 17.

15 Paragraph 18.

16 Defence, p. 9.

17 Reply, p. 13.

18 Doc. COM(83) 793 of 6 January 984, p. 9.

19 Prêchai, S., and Burrows, N.: Gender Discńmination Law of the European Community, pp. 195 and 196: It may be argued that the objective justification test, being a sort of derogation from the principle of equal treatment, must be interpreted as strictly as possible ana that increases are only permitted in order to guarantee a social minimum for a person with a dependent spouse or child.

20 Opinion, at p. 2513.

21 Opinion at p. 2510.

22 It was held, for example, with regard to Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, that the regulations governing social security for migrant workers did not set up a common scheme of social security, but allowed different schemes to exist, creating different claims ... Case 100/78 Rmi v Caisse de Compensation pour Allocations Familiales [1979] ECR 831, paragraph 13; see also Case 733/79 CCA F v Laterza [1980] ECR 1915, paragraph 8, and Case 807/79 Gravina v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben [1980] ECR 2205, paragraph 7.

23 Case 184/83 Hofmann v Banner Ersatzkasse [1984] ECR 3047.

24 Paragraph 11.

25 Paragraph 11.

26 Cited above, paragraphs 20 to 23.

27 Paragraph 23.

28 Pp. 2 and 5.

29 OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

30 P. 2513.

31 Ibid.

32 For example, with regard to fisheries, the Court has recognized on the basis of that article that the Member States arc under an obligation not to enter into any commitment within the framework of an international agreement which could hinder the Community (Joined Cases 3/76, 4/76 and 6/76 Kramer [1976] ECR 1279, paragraphs 42/43 and 44/45); see also Case 61/77 Commissioni Ireland [1978] ECR 417, paragraph 65; Case 141/78 France v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 2923, paragraph 8; Case 32/79 Commission v United Kingdom [1980] ECR 2403, paragraph 10; Case 804/79 Commtssion v United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045, paragraph 28; see also, with regard to freedom of movement for workers, Case 77/82 Peskeloglou v Bundesanstalt Jur Arbeit [1983] ECR 1085.