On this page you will find analysis on a range of EU Law cases. If you are looking for a case that has not been added, please get in touch and the case will be added to the website as soon as possible.
Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143
A teacher in Cornwall had informed his employer that he intended to undergo gender reassignment surgery and the school and the County Council immediately said that they were unwilling to continue his employment. He lost his job and complained to an employment tribunal in Truro. The tribunal requested a Preliminary Ruling from the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice held that dismissing him for reasons relating to gender reassignment surgery was a breach of the Union's Equal Treatment Directive.
The Directive was in relation to equal treatment between men and women. It did not mention gender reassignment (which is unsurprising as this was not an issue in 1976). The court interpreted that Directive in the light of contemporary reality. The court held that even though the Directive did not mention gender reassignment, dismissing Mr. P for that reason was a violation of the Directive. It interpreted the Directive in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect of human dignity).
Case C-249/96 Grant v SW Trains [1998] ECR I-621
Lisa Grant was employed by SW Trains and was in a long-term same sex relationship. Under SW Trains employment policy, employees of SW Trains were entitled to certain travel concessions, they were also entitled to these concessions for their spouses or long-term opposite sex partners. The company's policy, however, excluded long-term same sex partners. Lisa Grant complained that to deny her and her partner the travel concessions that were available to other employees constituted unlawful discrimination. Grant argued that it violated the Equal Treatment Directive in the light of P v S and Cornwall County Council, that the Directive should be interpreted broadly to encompass discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. However, it was not. One of the reasons that it was not was that the Amsterdam Treaty amended the EC Treaty to inject into that Treaty a new provision enabling action to be taken by the Union legislature to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. However, the Amsterdam Treaty was not in force at the time of the Grant case, therefore the court could not take much account of it except to say that the it was not for the judges to introduce a ban on sexuality discrimination by judicial means when quite clearly the Amsterdam Treaty deals with this. It was not in force, they could not pre-empt it. The court had to wait and Grant had to wait until the new provision was in force and gives rise to legislation to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. The judges were not prepared to do the legislatures work for it (a good example of judicial restraint). Although the court was widely expected to continue in its mode of expansive interpretation, it did not, it chose to respect the role of the legislature.
Case C-402/07 Sturgeon v Condor [2009] ECR I-10923
This case surrounded the request for a Preliminary Ruling by the Court on the interpretation of an EU Regulation (compensation for cancelled flights but not for delay). However, the Court held that it was appropriate to interpret the Regulation to entitle passengers who reach their final destination three hours or more after their scheduled arrival time to compensation. The Court arguably interpreted the regulation in a way that was never intended by the Union legislature. Advocate General Sharpston criticised the decision, "...the EU legislature can select a particular time limit triggering a right to compensation, the Court cannot, any figure one cared to pick would involve reading into the Regulation something it plainly does not contain and would be a judicial usurpation of the legislature's prerogative". The Court would be wrongly treading on the toes of the legislature.
