I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-527/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Male and female workers - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Directive 97/81/EC - UNICE, CEEP and ETUC Framework Agreement on part-time work - Calculation of benefit - System for inclusion of contribution gaps - Part-time workers and full-time workers))
(2015/C 198/07)
Language of the case: Spanish
Applicant: Lourdes Cachaldora Fernández
Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
1.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 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction;
2.The Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, set out in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.