header-logo header-logo

European law

28 March 2014
Issue: 7600 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

CD v ST C-167/12, [2014] All ER (D) 183 (Mar)

Council Directive (EC) 92/85 (on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding) should be interpreted as meaning that member states were not required to provide maternity leave pursuant to Art 8 of that directive to a female worker who as a commissioning mother had had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement, even in circumstances where she might breastfeed the baby following the birth or where she did breastfeed the baby. 

Article 14 of Directive 2006/54 (on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), read in conjunction with Art 2(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c) of that directive, should be interpreted as meaning that an employer’s refusal to provide maternity leave to a commissioning mother who had had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement did not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex. 

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll