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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll