Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 27 April 1994

1 Original language: English.

2 OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

3 It appears that a married person whose husband or wife has not yet reached the age of 65 receives 70% of the social minimum, and that all persons entitled to AOW receive a supplement of at most 30% of the social minimum if their partner is younger than 65. However, these additional pension rights do not seem to be relevant for this case.

4 Cited above, note 1.

5 Case 170/84 Bilka v Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607.

6 Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889.

7 Ibid., paragraphs 40 to 45 of the judgment.

8 See Case C-109/91 Ten Oever [1993] ECR I-4879, paragraphs 15 to 20 of the judgment.

9 Cited above, note 1.

10 See Case 384/85 Borrie Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer [1987] ECR 2865, paragraph 10 of the judgment, Case 80/87 Dik v College van Burgemeester en Wethouders [1988] ECR 1601, paragraph 9, and Joined Cases C-87/90, C-88/90 and C-89/90 Verholen v Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1991] ECR I-3757, paragraphs 28 to 29.

11 See Case 384/85, cited in note, paragraph 11 of the judgment, as most recently confirmed in Case C-343/92 Roks, judgment of 24 February 1994, paragraph 18.

12 OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40.

13 Article 2(1).

14 Article 4.

15 Article 8(1).

16 Article 8(2).

17 Case C-110/91 Moroni v Firma Collo, judgment of 14 December 1993, [1993] ECR I-6591, paragraphs 22 to 24.

18 Case 80/70 Defrenne v Belgium [1971] ECR 445, paragraphs 7 to 8 of the judgment.

19 Case 170/84 Bilka, cited above in note, paragraphs 20 to 21 of the judgment.

20 Case C-262/88 Barber, cited above in note, paragraphs 25 to 27 of the judgment. See also Case C-173/91 Commission v Belgium [1993] I-673.

21 Case C-262/88, cited above in note, paragraphs 27 to 28 of the judgment.

22 Ibid., paragraph 26 of the judgment.

23 Case 43/75 Defrenne y Sabena [1976] ECR 455, paragraph 22 of the judgment, emphasis added.

24 Case 23/83 Liefting v Academisch Ziekenhuis bij de Universiteit van Amsterdam [1984] ECR 3225.

25 Case 23/83, cited above in note, p. 3244.

26 Case 43/75, cited above in note 22.

27 Case C-109/91, cited above in note 7.

28 Case 171/88 Rmner-Kitlm v FWW Spend Gebaudereimgimg [1989] ECR 2743.

29 Case C-262/88, cited above in note 5.

30 See paragraph 18.

31 See paragraphs 51 et seq.

32 See paragraphs 19 et seq.

33 See note 17.

34 See Article 2(1), cited above, paragraph 16.

35 See below, paragraph 51.

36 See Article 2(1) of the directive.

37 Case 43/75, cited above in note, paragraph 21 of the judgment.

38 Case 170/84, cited above in note, paragraph 30 of the judgment.

39 See above, paragraph 9.

40 Case C-343/92, cited above in note, paragraph 36 of the judgment.

41 Case C-262/88 Barber, cited above in note, paragraph 44 of the judgment.

42 See Case C-109/91 Ten Oever, cited above in note, Case C-110/91 Moroni, cited above in note and Case C-152/91 Neath v Hugh Steeper Ltd, [1993] ECR I-6935.

43 Case C-262/88 Barber, cited above in note, paragraph 45 of the judgment.

44 See Case 43/75, cited above in note 22.

45 Above, paragraph 51.

46 Ibid.

47 See e. g. Joined Cases C-87/90 to C-89/90 Verholen and Others, above note 9.

48 See paragraph 16 above, and paragraphs 51 et seq.

49 Case C-109/91, cited above in note. It is true that the difference between Barber and Ten Oever is more limited than the difference between Barber and this case, as in both the former cases the discrimination related to the exceptions in Directives 79/7 and 86/378.

50 The Court did not follow on that point the Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven, who took the view that a new temporal limitation should be introduced, based on the date of the judgment in that case: see paragraph 51 of the Opinion.

51 See paragraph 13.

52 Opinion of 28 April 1993 in Joined Cases C-109/91, C-110/91, C-152/91 and C-200/91 Ten Oever and Others, paragraph 23.

53 Article B of that Treaty. However, pursuant to Article L of the Treaty the Court has no jurisdiction over that provision.

54 See paragraph 15 above.

55 Compare Case 29/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 1661, paragraph 23 of the judgment.

56 See paragraph 15.

57 See paragraph 57 above.