Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 27 January 1993

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

3 Emphasis added.

4 In particular, the United Kingdom draws attention to the discrimination that would arise in respect of the credits granted to the recipients of the benefits in question to enable them to contribute to the State pension and to the fact that the introduction of a higher age limit would give rise to anomalies in that noncontributory benefits such as the ones at issue would be granted on more advantageous terms than contributory benefits.

5 Sec the judgment in Case 149/77 Defrenne v Sabena [1978] ECR 1365, paragraphs 26 and 27.

6 Judgment in Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ubter Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 38.

7 See the judgments in Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 36, and Case 262/84 Beets-Proper v Van Lanschot Bankiers [1986] ECR 773, paragraph 38.

8 Case 9/91 The Equal Opportunities Commission [1992] ECR I-4297.

9 In that connection, see the judgment in Case 163/82 Commission v Italy [1983] ECR 3273 in which the Court stated that a domestic provision under which female workers, although fulfilling the requirements for entidemem to an old-age pension, may choose to continue to work until they reach the same age as that laid down as the limit for men, is to be regarded as one of the most important working conditions (see also the Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn in Marshall, above, [1986] ECR 725, in particular at page 730).

10 On this point, see the Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven in Case 9/91, above.

11 See in particular the judgment in Case C-184/89 Nimz [1991] I-297, paragraph 14, and Case C-229/89 Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR I-2205.

12 In that connection, it is noteworthy that the Court has consistently held that the group discriminated against must, pending legislative intervention, be treated in the same way and be subject to the same scheme as the other group whose circumstances are the same — see inter alia the judgment in Case C-377/89 Cotter and McDermott, paragraph 18.