Euroopan oikeusasiamies
Asiaan liittyviä asiakirjoja
1. The complainant is a Parliament official. In 2008, he became the father of twins.
2. Following the births of his twins, he requested 20 days' special leave[1]. In so doing, he invoked Article 6 of Section 2 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations. This Article provides that: "In addition to annual leave, an official may, on application, be granted special leave. In particular, in the following cases special leave shall be granted as shown… – birth of a child: 10 days, to be taken during the fourteen weeks following birth." Given that the Staff Regulations provide for 10 days' special leave to be granted following the birth of a child, he considered that he was entitled to 20 days' special leave for the birth of twins.
3. On 13 November 2008, the Appointing Authority rejected the complainant's request for 20 days' special leave. It referred to Parliament's internal document entitled "Guide to leave and absence from work"[2] (the 'Guide') concerning the conditions for granting special leave in accordance with Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations. The Guide states the following: "Birth of child: 10 days during the 14 weeks.12 days in the case of multiple births." The Appointing Authority went on to state that there were not any provisions in the Staff Regulations concerning the extension of special leave in the case of multiple births. Therefore, Parliament's administration, "as other EU institutions did and as most of the national legislations foresaw it", decided to extend the special 'paternity' leave by 20% in the case of multiple births, by analogy with Article 58 of the Staff Regulations[3]. It granted the complainant 10 days for the birth of one twin and two days' special leave for the birth of the other twin. The complainant was, therefore, granted a total of 12 days' special leave.
4. On 16 December 2008, the complainant submitted a complaint pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the Appointing Authority's decision. In his complaint, he pointed out that the Court of Justice grants its staff 20 days' special leave in the case of a multiple birth.
5. By decision of 2 March 2009, the Secretary-General upheld the Appointing Authority's decision to grant the complainant two days' special leave for the second twin's birth. The Secretary-General further stated that, as regards the different practices within the EU institutions, in accordance with case-law of the European Courts[4], "the measures adopted on the initiative of the institutions themselves cannot be relied on in support of the allegation of infringement of the principle of equal treatment."
6. The complainant was not satisfied with Parliament's reply and, on 7 October 2009, he turned to the Ombudsman.
7. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following allegations and claim.
1. Parliament's decision to grant him only two days' special leave for the birth of his second son, a twin, was unfair.
2. Parliament's reply to his Article 90(2) complaint was unsatisfactory because (i) Parliament did not reply to his argument that the Court of Justice interpreted Article 6 of Section 2 ('Special leave') of Annex V to the Staff Regulations differently and; (ii) Parliament invoked the principle of equal treatment, despite the fact that he had never mentioned any infringement of this principle in his Article 90(2) complaint.
The complainant claimed that Parliament should grant him 20 days' special leave.
8. On 9 November 2009, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry regarding the complainant’s allegations and claim.
9. On 23 March 2010, Parliament sent its opinion. The Ombudsman forwarded it to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which he sent on 22 April 2010.
10. On 20 November 2010, the Ombudsman made a provisional finding of maladministration and, in accordance with Article 3(5) of his Statute, proposed a friendly solution to Parliament.
11. On 22 February 2011, Parliament sent its reply. This reply was forwarded to the complainant, with an invitation to submit observations by 31 March 2011.
12. On 21 June 2011, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to Parliament, in accordance with Article 3(6) of his Statute.
13. Parliament's reply to the draft recommendation was sent to the complainant, with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant sent his observations on 25 October 2011.
14. The complainant alleged that Parliament's decision to grant him two days' special leave for his second twin's birth was unfair. He claimed that Parliament should grant him 20 days' special leave.
15. First, in support of his allegation, the complainant argued that the legislator did not provide any specific rule in the Staff Regulations concerning special leave for fathers of twins. Therefore, he concluded that it was the legislator's intention that special leave for fathers in cases of multiple births should be decided according to the general rule in the Staff Regulations. The general rule states that the father of a newborn child is entitled to 10 days' special leave. Therefore, in the case of the birth of two children, the complainant considered that the father would be entitled to 20 days' special leave. In the complainant's view, this was the way in which the Court of Justice also interpreted the relevant rule in the Staff Regulations, namely, by granting 10 days' special leave for each child in the case of multiple births.
16. Second, the complainant argued that Parliament's interpretation of the relevant rules was unnecessarily restrictive because such special leave for a multiple birth would concern very few officials. He further argued that if an official becomes the father of twins, he will find himself in an extremely demanding situation where any extra leave would be all the more valuable.
17. In its opinion, Parliament referred to a case it dealt with in 2006, where an official asked for 20 days' special leave due to a multiple birth. Parliament refused that request, but agreed to extend the special 'paternity' leave by 20% that is, to a total of 12 days, by analogy with Article 58 of the Staff Regulations. The latter provides for the extension of maternity leave from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for a multiple birth, regardless of how many children are born. Parliament decided to submit the issue to the Preparatory Committee for Matters relating to the Staff Regulations ('CPQS'), and a meeting was held on 5 July 2006. This meeting revealed that administrative practices among EU Institutions differed. Parliament's position was between the 'maximalist' administrative practice employed by the Court of Justice, which grants its officials 20 days' special leave for the birth of twins, and the then 'minimalist' administrative practices of the European Commission and of the Council, which granted only 10 days' special leave.
18. Parliament concluded that, in the absence of any clear rule in the Staff Regulations concerning a multiple birth, there are good grounds for increasing special leave by analogy to the maternity leave foreseen in Article 58 of the Staff Regulations.
19. Nevertheless, Parliament was conscious that the differing practices of the European institutions were not in accordance with the principle of good administration and that it "did not favour" equal treatment of officials. Parliament therefore decided to raise the issue at a forthcoming meeting of the CPQS in order to reach an agreement between the Heads of the various administrations. Should such an agreement prove to be more favourable for the complainant, Parliament would apply the new rule to him with retroactive effect.
20. The Ombudsman was not entirely convinced by Parliament's view that Article 58 of the Staff Regulations should apply by analogy to its decision on the duration of special leave in the case of a multiple birth. He made the following analysis.
21. The rationale of Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations does not appear to be the same as that of Article 58 of the Staff Regulations. The "pregnancy/confinement" leave foreseen in Article 58 of the Staff Regulations is designed only for female officials who have given, or who are going to give, birth. The rationale behind the special leave provided for in Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations is to allow an official who becomes a father to assist the mother of his child/children after the birth, even if only for a few days.
22. Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations provides for special leave following the birth of a child and is designed primarily for officials who become fathers. It is unique, and should not be interpreted in conjunction with the provision which provides for a "pregnancy/confinement" leave of twenty weeks, to which, under Article 58 of the Staff Regulations, only mothers are entitled.
23. The Ombudsman understood Parliament's argument to be that if there is only a 20% increase in a mother's legal entitlement to leave in the case of the birth of twins, it is sufficient if internal provisions increase a father's leave by the same proportion. There could be no discussion, however, about the fact that taking care of twins directly after their birth requires much more effort from both parents. A more generous treatment of mothers of twins would require a change in the law, in this case, the Staff Regulations. On the other hand, the institutions could use their discretion in deciding whether to treat fathers more generously. The Ombudsman did not see why Parliament could not adopt a more generous approach in view of the fact that, as the complainant rightly argued, multiple births tend to be rare.
24. Moreover, Parliament did not give examples of national law which inspired the internal provision in question. To the Ombudsman's knowledge, some national legislation multiplies the number of days of such special leave according to the number of children born. For instance, Swedish legislation foresees that "a temporary parental benefit" in connection with the birth of one child should last 10 days, of twins, 20 days, of triplets, 30 days. As regards France, in the case of a multiple birth, fathers are entitled to 18 days' leave, that is, seven more days than in the case of the birth of one child. This corresponds to an increase of more than 60%, which goes well beyond Parliament's 20% increase. Parliament, which represents European citizens, could look to progressive national social law for inspiration.
25. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered that good administration would require Parliament to adopt a more generous approach and, in the case of multiple births, grant officials who become fathers 10 days' special leave for the birth of each child, that is to say, twenty days in the case of twins, and thirty days in case of triplets.
26. The Ombudsman welcomed Parliament's initiative of including this issue in the 2006 CPQS agenda, and in the CPQS agenda for 2010 subsequent to the present complaint being lodged with him. The CPQS is an inter-institutional body in charge of discussing and trying to find harmonised solutions in matters relating to the Staff Regulations. The Ombudsman also participates in its deliberations. During the CPQS meetings, which took place on 23 April and 7 September 2010, it was not possible to get all the institutions to agree on the desired common approach to the problem at hand. At that time, the Commission and Parliament appeared to be applying the 12-day special leave rule, the Council allowed ten days, and the Court of Justice 20 days. It also appeared that both the Committee of the Regions and the Court of Auditors joined the Court's approach by granting their officials who become fathers 10 days' special leave for each child in the case of multiple births.
27. It would be indeed desirable, for the sake of uniformity, if the institutions could harmonise their various approaches to this question. Since this did not appear to be possible in the near future, the European Ombudsman decided to align his own service's approach with that of the Court of Justice.
28. The lack of a common approach at present does not, however, prevent other institutions, and in particular Parliament, from changing their current rules at any time in the future.
29. In light of the above, the Ombudsman made the following proposal for a friendly solution below, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.
Taking into account the Ombudsman's findings, Parliament could consider replacing its existing practice of granting officials who become fathers of twins a total of only 12 days' special leave with a new practice, entitling this category of fathers to 10 extra days of special leave.
30. Parliament rejected the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution. It emphasised, however, that it was necessary to find a common approach in all institutions regarding the special leave granted to officials in case of multiple births. It therefore raised this issue again during the CPQS meeting of 19 November 2010. Parliament regretted that no agreement was reached in the meeting. Therefore, "in order to ensure the uniform application of this rule among the majority of institutions", Parliament felt obliged to maintain its position until the common agreement of all the institutions is reached.
31. Parliament stated that its approach was "analogous" to the one adopted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 16 September 2010[5]. While this judgment did not deal with the Staff Regulations, but rather with the interpretation of the Framework Agreement on parental leave annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 and concluded by the general UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC[6], as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997[7], some arguments used by the Court to interpret the relevant provision of the Framework Agreement might prove useful for the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations. The Court interpreted the term "birth of a child" of Clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, which is also present in the Staff Regulations. Clause 2.1 of the Framework agreement reads as follows: "1. This agreement grants, subject to clause 2.2, men and women workers an individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child to enable them to take care of that child, for at least three months, until a given age up to 8 years to be defined by Member States and/or management and labour."
32. Parliament stated that the Court did not uphold an argument in favour of a literal interpretation of "birth of a child", and referred to paragraphs 49[8], 67[9] and 75[10] of the judgment.
33. In his observations, the complainant stated that the Court's judgment of 16 September 2010 obviously concerned a different set of rules. It was therefore only of marginal relevance for his complaint. However, it was interesting that Parliament chose to refer to this case in relation to parental leave because the relevant rules for such leave grant six months for every child in the case of multiple births[11].
34. The complainant further stated that the Court did not endorse Parliament's interpretation of the rules in question, but merely highlighted the fact that the requirements of the Framework Agreement were minimal and that the Member States have wide discretion as to how they choose to ensure that the parents of twins receive treatment that takes due account of their particular needs.
35. The Ombudsman was disappointed that Parliament rejected his friendly solution and decided to maintain its challenged practice.
36. The Ombudsman fully understood and shared Parliament's objective of arriving at a uniform application of the Staff Regulations. He was however not convinced that Parliament's rejection of his friendly solution would contribute to achieving this goal.
37. The Ombudsman noted that Parliament first justified its refusal by referring to what it perceived as its obligation to maintain its position in order to ensure the uniform application of Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations among the "majority of institutions". However, during the CPQS meeting of 19 November 2010, in which the Ombudsman was also present, no common position was agreed. The Commission, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee supported Parliament's stance. The Court of Justice had the same position as the Ombudsman. The Court of Auditors and the Committee of the Regions were hesitant as to whether they should support Parliament's stance. It thus appeared that, even if Parliament maintained its current position, there was no certainty that the hesitant institutions would support it. Therefore it remains uncertain whether Parliament's objective to ensure the uniform application of Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations among the "majority of institutions" can be realised. The Ombudsman would inform the institutions present at the meeting of this draft recommendation, which would be published on his website.
38. Parliament's further argument was based on the Court's interpretation of the term "birth of a child" in its judgment in Case C- 149/10[12]. However, this interpretation cannot be considered in abstracto, outside its legal and factual context, and should not be applied automatically to different circumstances without due care[13]. As the Court pointed out in the judgment "[i]n interpreting a provision of Community law, it is necessary to consider the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursed by the rules of which it is part." (Paragraph 42 of the judgment).
39. The Court interpreted the term "birth of a child" contained in Clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement in paragraphs 49-52 of its judgment. It first stated that "[i]t is possible that the use of the singular ("a child") is not numerical but generic, and that the singular does not establish a correlation between the number of children and the number of periods of parental leave but designates the children as a whole, as a category of persons capable of conferring entitlement to parental leave." It further held however that, since the wording of the Clause is ambiguous, "the purpose of the rules of which that provision is part must therefore be taken into consideration."
40. Against the above background, the Ombudsman pointed out that the purpose of Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations is different from the purpose of the Framework Agreement.
41. The parental leave provided for in the Legal Framework was designed to facilitate the reconciliation of parental and professional responsibilities for working parents (paragraph 36 of the judgment). It appears, therefore, that Clause 2. 1 of the Framework Agreement provides for parental leave in terms of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations and not in terms of Article 6 (as rightly pointed out by the complainant). The Court's reference in paragraph 67 of its judgment to the "growing up" and "developing" of twins in parallel is clear. Clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement was interpreted by the Court in relation not to the first days and months of the twins' lives but rather in relation with the longer period during which children grow up. Indeed, the parental leave interpreted by the Court may be granted in order to take care of the child for up to eight years of his/her life. On the contrary, special leave after birth serves a different purpose in the context of the help to be provided by the father and to the mother right after the birth. The special leave provided for in Article 6 may be granted only during the 14 weeks following the birth of the child. It is therefore obvious that these provisions are not comparable, and it would be incorrect to rely on the Court's interpretation of "birth of a child" in the Framework Agreement on parental leave in the different situation of special leave foreseen in Article 6.
42. As stated before, the aim of the special leave from Article 6 is to ensure that the EU official who becomes a father can assist the mother (who does not necessarily need to be an EU official) during the initial 14 weeks of the life of their child/children. It is unlikely that, during this initial period, parents of twins will be able to balance their parental tasks effectively. Doubling the amount of special leave in order to help the mother of newborn baby twins may be justified by the very fact that two newborn babies can hardly be given the necessary care simultaneously by the same person. In this respect, it is worth quoting the recommendations issued by health specialists for mothers of twins after giving birth: "Extra help is critical. You'll be tired in the weeks after delivering multiples, and the demands of caring for them will be taxing. You may want to pump breast milk so that your partner can do a nighttime feeding. It's also a good idea to line up friends or family to help with housework, meals, and baby care, or you can look into hiring help in the form of a postpartum doula, baby nurse, housecleaner, mother's helper, or any other available assistant."[14]
43. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered unjustified Parliament's refusal to replace its existing practice of granting officials who become fathers of twins a total of only 12 days' special leave with a new practice, entitling this category of fathers to 10 extra days of special leave. This was an instance of maladministration.
44. In light of the above finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman made the following draft recommendation below, in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.
Taking into account the Ombudsman's findings, Parliament should replace its existing practice of granting officials who become fathers of twins a total of only 12 days' special leave with a new practice, entitling this category of fathers to 10 extra days of special leave.
45. Parliament rejected the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and maintained the position it had expressed in its previous replies. However, Parliament agreed with the Ombudsman's view that twin babies require more care than a single baby. In this respect, Parliament reiterated that, by analogy with Article 58 of the Staff Regulations, the special leave granted to a father is extended by 20%.
46. Parliament further outlined that the Staff Regulations provide for other opportunities of leave for a father of twins who wants to assist their mother in the period following the birth. In this respect, Parliament referred to the parental leave provided for by Article 42a of the Staff Regulations, which grants an official six months of leave for every child during the first twelve years after birth.
47. Finally, Parliament emphasised that the EU institutions employing the absolute majority of EU staff apply the practice of granting 12 days of special leave following multiple births. In the absence of any clear indication in the Staff Regulations, Parliament enjoys discretionary power in determining the number of days of special leave and in applying the above inter-institutional practice.
48. In his observations on Parliament's above reply, the complainant argued that Parliament's decision to grant only a 20% extension of the paternity leave in the event of multiple births is arbitrary. He further noted that Parliament's suggestion is to replace the paid leave to which he was entitled with unpaid leave (parental leave set out in Article 42a of the Staff regulations). The complainant stated that he indeed had to take parental leave immediately after the birth of the twins. He pointed out that the parental leave for his second twin had to be longer because of Parliament's refusal to grant him 'full paternity leave' on the basis of Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations. Thus, this situation reduced the complainant's opportunities to take extra leave and spend more time with his second child, creating de facto discrimination against the second twin. Finally, the complainant emphasised that "having twins is not only 20% more expensive than having one child".
49. The Ombudsman regrets that Parliament rejected his draft recommendation. Furthermore, Parliament still did not put forward convincing arguments as to why it could not accept the Ombudsman's recommendation but only reiterated its previous stance on the matter.
50. As argued in detail in paragraphs 21-24 and 41-42 above, there is a huge difference between taking care of newborns on the one hand and taking care of older babies and children on the other. For this reason, the legislator foresaw, in Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations, the special leave assigned to fathers who need to help the mothers of newborns (up to 14 weeks old). This special leave is in addition to Article 42a of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the parental leave assigned to parents (mothers and fathers) who need to take care of babies and young children (up to twelve years after their birth). Moreover, the maternity leave provided for in Article 58 of the Staff Regulations serves a different purpose than the one provided for by the special leave set out in Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations. The maternity leave allows mothers to take care of their children during the first four months of life (140 days). When twins are born, providing the mothers of twins with only a 20% increase in leave (28 extra days) does not serve the purpose of relieving the mother from the special burden of having to deal with newborn twins. In contrast, the special leave provided for in Article 6 is exactly intended for fathers with a view to making it possible for them to help the mothers taking care of a newborn child just after the delivery and during the mothers' maternity leave. This special leave is intended to consider the special needs related to the care of twins by granting additional days of special leave to fathers and ultimately giving mothers the necessary support and relief after giving birth to twins. The Staff Regulations leave this possibility to the discretion of the institutions. The Ombudsman is deeply disappointed that Parliament does not recognise the above differences between the maternity leave, the special leave and the parental leave.
51. Finally, the Ombudsman had hoped that Parliament would recognise its role as the institution that provides guidance to other institutions, agencies and bodies on how to respond to the needs of staff and, ultimately, of encouraging parenthood by adopting administrative rules convenient to parents, when the applicable law allows for such discretion. In the present case, Parliament could have done so but chose not to use its discretion with a view to promoting the welfare of its staff. Moreover, neither in its reply to the friendly solution nor in its reply to the draft recommendation has Parliament submitted convincing reasons why it could not do so.
52. In light of the above, the Ombudsman confirms his earlier finding of maladministration and considers unjustified Parliament's refusal to replace its existing practice of granting officials who become fathers of twins two extra days' special leave instead of 10 extra days of special leave.
53. When a draft recommendation is rejected, the only further step that the Ombudsman can take is to invoke Article 3(7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman and send a special report to the European Parliament. In the Ombudsman's Annual Report for 1998, he pointed out that the possibility for him to present a special report to the European Parliament is of inestimable value for his work. He added that special reports should therefore not be presented too frequently, but only in relation to important matters of general interest and where Parliament is able to take action in order to assist the Ombudsman. The Annual Report for 1998 was submitted to, and approved by, the European Parliament.
54. Although the present inquiry has highlighted an instance of maladministration, the Ombudsman does not consider that, in this specific case, there is a real possibility to find a solution to the problem at hand by submitting to Parliament a special report against its own administration. Therefore, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case with a critical remark. He wishes however to sensitise Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, in light of its involvement in adopting the amendments to the EU directive on maternity leave[15], about the problem arising from the lack of consistency and coherence between the number of births and the length of the special leave set out in Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations for Officials of the EU.
55. The complainant argued that Parliament's reply to his Article 90(2) complaint was unsatisfactory because Parliament: (i) did not reply to his argument that the Court of Justice interpreted Article 6 of Section 2 ('Special leave') of Annex V to the Staff Regulations differently; and (ii) invoked the principle of equal treatment, despite the fact that he had never mentioned any infringement of this principle in his Article 90(2) complaint.
56. In its opinion, Parliament explained that the benefit granted by one institution to its officials as a favour, and not under a legal obligation laid down in the Staff Regulations, does not oblige another institution to grant the same treatment to its officials[16]. Parliament further stated that the Court of Justice has concluded that such measures adopted on the initiative of the institutions or bodies themselves could not be relied on in support of the allegation of infringement of the principle of equal treatment[17]. Parliament pointed out that, although the complainant did not invoke it, it had referred to the principle of equal treatment in order to explain it better.
57. The Ombudsman outlines that his inquiry into the present case focused on the substance of the complainant's grievances, which were addressed under his first allegation. The Ombudsman understands the complainant's second allegation as covering the procedural parts of his complaint. The Ombudsman hoped that Parliament would provide a positive answer to his draft recommendation and settle the complainant's claim. Thus, he did not consider it useful to deal with the complainant's second allegation until now.
58. The Ombudsman notes that, in the framework of the present inquiry, Parliament replied to the arguments the complainant put forward in his Article 90(2) complaint and clarified its stance on the matter. Although, as evidenced in his conclusion set out in point 52 above, the Ombudsman does not share Parliament's above substantive position, he considers that no further inquiries are justified into the complainant's second allegation.
On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following critical remark and conclusion:
Parliament acted unfairly by refusing to replace its existing practice of granting officials who become fathers of twins a total of only 12 days' special leave with a new practice, entitling this category of fathers to 10 extra days of special leave.
No further inquiries are justified into the complainant's second allegation.
The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.
P. Nikiforos Diamandouros
Done in Strasbourg on 13 March 2012
[1] No date specified in the complaint.
[2] Document available on the Parliament's website: http://www.epintranet.ep.parl.union.eu/intranet/ep
[3] Article 58 of the Staff Regulations also provides for the following:
"Pregnant women shall, in addition to the leave provided for in Article 57, be entitled on production of a medical certificate to twenty weeks of leave. … In the case of multiple or premature birth or the birth of a handicapped child, the duration shall be of 24 weeks." (emphasis added)
[4] Joined Cases C-193/87 and C-194/87 Henri Maurissen and European Public Service Union v Court of Auditors [1990] ECR I-95.
[5] Case C- 149/10, reference for a preliminary ruling Zoi Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon, judgment of 16 September 2010, not yet published in the ECR.
[6] OJ 1996 L 145, p.4.
[7] OJ 1998 L 10, p. 24.
[8] See paragraph 49 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "It is possible that the use of the singular in clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement is not numerical but generic, and that the singular does not establish a correlation between the number of children and the number of periods of parental leave but designates the children as a whole, as a category of persons capable of conferring entitlement to parental leave."
[9] Paragraph 67 of the judgment reads as follows:
"Furthermore, whilst it cannot be denied that the task of bringing up twins entails greater effort and therefore is not comparable to care of a single child, it also cannot be ignored that the fact that twins grow up and develop in parallel entails synergies and that, consequently, the task of bringing them up is not necessarily comparable to the task that bringing up two children of different ages involves."
[10] Paragraph 75 of the judgment reads as follows:
"Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement is not to be interpreted as requiring the birth of twins to confer entitlement to a number of periods of parental leave equal to the number of children born…"
[11] Article 42a of the Staff Regulations:
"An official shall be entitled to up to six months of parental leave without basic salary for every child, to be taken during the first twelve years after the birth or adoption of the child. The duration of the leave may be doubled for single parents recognised under general implementing provisions adopted by the institutions. The minimum leave taken at any one time shall not be less than one month."
[12] See footnote 9 above.
[13] Case C- 149/10 was based on the following facts. Ms Chatzi was a public servant in Greece. On 21 May 2007, she gave birth to twins. By decision of 27 June 2008, the relevant Greek authorities granted her, at her request, nine months paid parental leave from 20 September 2007 (that is, starting from the date, on which her twins were already 16 weeks old.) On 30 January 2009, when her twins were one year and seven months old, she applied for a second period of nine months paid parental leave from 1 March 2009, in respect of the second of her twins. This application was rejected by the relevant Greek authorities. She turned to the national court, which had doubts as to the interpretation of Directive 96/34/EC in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The national court referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. The second question was: "Does the term "birth" in clause 2.1 of [the Framework Agreement] mean that a double right to the grant of parental leave is created for working parents, that right being based on the fact that pregnancy with twins results in two successive births of children (twins), or does it mean that parental leave is granted for one birth, irrespective of how many children are thereby born, without any infringement in the latter case of equality before the law under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?"
[14] See the link http://www.parents.com (American Academy of Paediatrics)
[15] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC 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, COM(2008) 637.
[16] Case T-156/95, Echauz Brigaldi v. Commission -ECR 1999, p. I-1287, paragraphs 11 and 34.
[17] Cases C-193/87 and 194/87 Henri Maurissen v Court of Auditors ECR 1990, p. I-95, paragraphs 26 and 27.
