Additional (maternity) leave for women only? The Court of Justice refines its Hofmann test in Syndicat CFTC (C-463/19) yet forgets about the children

P. Foubert, Alicia Hendricks
{"title":"Additional (maternity) leave for women only? The Court of Justice refines its Hofmann test in Syndicat CFTC (C-463/19) yet forgets about the children","authors":"P. Foubert, Alicia Hendricks","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211034098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Syndicat CFTC v. CPAM provided an excellent opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to reconsider its position taken in the Hofmann case, regarding the question to what extent additional maternity leave can be exclusively reserved for female workers without infringing Directive 2006/54. Whilst the CJEU has narrowed the grey zone, it refrains from clearly indicating the boundaries between ‘maternity’ and ‘parenthood’ and leaves that for the Member States to decide. Against this backdrop, this case note argues that the CJEU should cease to conflate both concepts, as it cements women into their traditional role as primary caregivers and keeps men in a role subsidiary to that of women with respect to the exercise of parental responsibilities. Ultimately, child-care related leave should be approached from a rights perspective, taking into account the best interests of the child.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"908 - 918"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211034098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Syndicat CFTC v. CPAM provided an excellent opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to reconsider its position taken in the Hofmann case, regarding the question to what extent additional maternity leave can be exclusively reserved for female workers without infringing Directive 2006/54. Whilst the CJEU has narrowed the grey zone, it refrains from clearly indicating the boundaries between ‘maternity’ and ‘parenthood’ and leaves that for the Member States to decide. Against this backdrop, this case note argues that the CJEU should cease to conflate both concepts, as it cements women into their traditional role as primary caregivers and keeps men in a role subsidiary to that of women with respect to the exercise of parental responsibilities. Ultimately, child-care related leave should be approached from a rights perspective, taking into account the best interests of the child.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
只容许女性享有额外(产假)假?法院在辛迪加商品期货交易委员会(C-463/19)中完善了霍夫曼测试,却忘记了孩子们
辛迪加CFTC诉CPAM案为欧盟法院重新考虑其在霍夫曼案中的立场提供了一个极好的机会,即在不违反2006/54号指令的情况下,在多大程度上可以专门为女性工人保留额外产假。虽然欧盟委员会缩小了灰色地带,但它没有明确指出“生育”和“为人父母”之间的界限,而是让成员国来决定。在这种背景下,本案例说明认为,欧盟法院应停止将这两个概念混为一谈,因为它将女性纳入其作为主要照顾者的传统角色,并使男性在行使父母责任方面处于女性的次要角色。最终,与儿童保育相关的假期应该从权利的角度出发,考虑到儿童的最大利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Non-contractual liability of the EU: Need for a ‘diligent’ administrator test The European Arrest Warrant and the protection of the best interests of the child: The Court's last word on the limits of mutual recognition and the evolving obligations of national judicial authorities OP v. Commune d’Ans: When equality, intersectionality and state neutrality collide DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany? Chilling effect: Turning the poison into an antidote for fundamental rights in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1