Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.º 2 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 14 August 2020 – CJ v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-389/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.º 2 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CJ

Defendant: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Questions referred

Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, ¹ governing equal treatment, which precludes any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, either directly or indirectly, as regards the obligation to pay social security contributions, and Article 5(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, ² which lays down the same prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards the scope of social security schemes and the conditions of access to those schemes and the obligation to contribute, and the calculation of contributions, be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 251(d) LGSS, which provides: ‘d) The protection afforded by the Special Scheme for Domestic Workers shall not include protection in respect of unemployment.’?

If the answer to that question is affirmative, must that statutory provision be regarded as an example of prohibited discrimination under Article 9(1)(e) and/or (k) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, in so far as the addressees of the provision at issue, Article 251(d) LGSS, are almost exclusively women?

____________

¹ OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

² OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.