Ms Grant is employed by South-West Trains Ltd. That company's contracts of employment provide that employees are to enjoy free travel or travel concessions on its rail network. Those benefits are extended to an employee's spouse or to the partner of opposite sex of an employee if there has been a meaningful relationship between these partners for at least two years.

Ms Grant's request for those travel concessions for her female partner was refused on the ground that such concessions could be granted only for a spouse or for a partner of the opposite sex.

Ms Grant therefore brought proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton, arguing that the refusal constituted discrimination based on sex, contrary to the provisions of Community law on equal pay for men and women. The Industrial Tribunal referred questions to the Court concerning the interpretation of those provisions: it asked whether the refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions for the cohabitee of the same sex with whom an employee has a stable relationship constitutes discrimination prohibited by Community law, where such concessions are granted to an employee's spouse or to the partner of the opposite sex with whom an employee has a stable relationship outside marriage.

The Court examined the question in three stages.

First, it considered whether the limitation of the travel concessions to spouses and cohabitees of opposite sex constituted discrimination based directly on the sex of the worker. It found that the concessions are refused to a male worker if he is living with a person of the same sex, just as they are refused to a female worker living with a person of the same sex. The rule could not therefore be taken as discrimination based directly on sex, since it applies in the same way to female and male workers.

The Court then considered whether Community law requires that stable relationships between two persons of the same sex be treated by employers as equivalent to marriages or to stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. The Court noted, firstly, that the Community has not as yet adopted rules to that effect and, secondly, that the national laws of the Member States contain widely diverging provisions on the point. It also noted that the European Commission of Human Rights considers that despite the modern evolution of attitudes towards homosexuality, stable homosexual relationships do not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, it concluded that, in the present state of the law within the Community, stable relationships between cohabitees of the same sex are not treated as equivalent to relationships between married couples or cohabitees of opposite sex. It is for the legislature alone to adopt, if appropriate, measures which may affect that position.

Finally, the Court addressed the question whether, in the light of its case-law and certain other international conventions, discrimination based on sexual orientation could be treated as discrimination based on sex, which is prohibited by Community law. It reached the conclusion that Community law, as it stands at present, does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as that in point in the case before it.

The Court observed, however, that under the Treaty of Amsterdam the Council will be able, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, to take measures with a view to eliminating various forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Unofficial document for the use of the media, not binding on the Court of Justice.

For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page http://curia.eu.int at about 15.00 today. For further information please contact Mr Tom Kennedy. Tel:(352) 4303 3355.