Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 19 April 1994

1 Original language: French.

2 19.5 hours a week in Case C-399/92, 23.75 hours in Case C-409/92, 30 hours in Case C-425/92, not given in Case C-34/93, 3.75 hours % 6 days a week in Case C-50/93, 21 hours a week, and subsequently three-quarters of the normal working week, in Case C-78/93.

3 The collective agreement for federal employees (Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag).

4 See Articles 15(1), 17(1) and 35(1), second sentence, (a), of the BAT, applicable in Cases C-399/92, C-425/92 and C-78/93. The collective agreement relating to private health insurance scheme employees (Ersatzkassentarifvertrag), applicable in Case C-409/92, the collective agreement for employees covered by the miners' insurance fund (Knappschaftsangestelltentarifvertrag), applicable in Case C-34/93 and the collective agreement applicable to employees in the industrial cleaning sector (Rahmentarifvertrag für die gewerblichen Arbeitnehmer im Gebäudereinigerhandwerk), applicable in Case C-50/93, contain equivalent provisions.

5 OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19.

6 Only the first question was referred in Cases C-409/92 and C-50/93. Only the two first questions were referred in Cases C-425/92 ano! C-78/93.

7 Case C-33/89 Kowabka [1990] ECRI-2591, paragraphs 12 and 18; Case C-184/89 Nimz [1991] ECR I-297, paragraph 11; and Case C-127/92 Enderby [1993] ECR I-5535, paragraph 21.

8 Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889, paragraph 12, and, most recently, Case C-173/91 Commission v Belgium [1993] ECR I-673, paragraph 13.

9 My emphasis.

10 My emphasis.

11 See Darmon and Huglo: L'égalité de traitement entre Us hommes et les femmes dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes: un univers en expansion, RTDE 1992, p. 1, 14.

12 Ibidem.

13 Case 96/80 Jenkins [1981] ECR 911, paragraph 10 et seq.

14 Case 170/84 Bilka [1986] ECR 1607, paragraph 27.

15 Case 171/88 Rinner-Kühn [1989] ECR 2743, paragraphs 10 to 12.

16 Kowalska (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 13. In the two last-mentioned cases the contested rule was applied by the BAT.

17 Nimz (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 12.

18 Case C-360/90 Bötel [1992] ECR I-3589, paragraph 17.

19 Case C-102/88 Ruzius-Wilbrink [1989] ECR 4311, paragraph 13.

20 Cited in footnote 13, paragraph 27. See also Rinner-Kükn, paragraph 10, Kowalska, paragraphs 13, 19 and 20, and Bötet, paragraphs 16 and 17.

21 See paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in Case 237/85 Rummler [1986] ECR2101. That premiss is not affected by the example given by P. Schüren in Der Anspruch Teuzeitbescbäftigter auf Überstundenzuschläge, RdA 1990, pp. 18 and 19. That is because 48 hours' work costs the employer more if performed by a fulltime worker (who will receive an overtime supplement) than when performed by two part-time employees neither of whom will work more than the standard working week. Does it not show here that the purpose of the rules, which is to make overtime more costly, is well achieved, in addition to encouraging part-rime work?

22 Paragraph 20.

23 Paragraph 3.7 of its Observations.

24 Rinner-Kühn, cited above, paragraph 15.

25 Bilka, cited above, paragraph 36.

26 Cited in footnote 20.

27 Paragraph 17.

28 Paragraph 43.

29 Cited in footnote 18.

30 Paragraph 19.

31 Ibidem. See also paragraphs 19 and 20 of Nimz, cited above.

32 Paragraph 21 of the Opinion ([1991] ECRI-312). See also paragraph 24 of my Opinion in K&walska ([1990] ECR I-2605).