header-logo header-logo

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

European law

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll