Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (C-381/99)
Judgment
The questions referred for a prelimina…
Determining ivbetber work is the same…
49

Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (C-381/99)

Judgment of 26 Jun 2001law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-381-99/para_49@2026-11-11

49It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to find and assess the facts, to determine whether, in the light of the actual nature of the activities carried out by those concerned, equal value can be attributed to them (jämO, cited above, paragraph 48).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice
Case: C-381/99 · ECLI:EU:C:2001:358
Decided: 26 Jun 2001
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Susanna Brunnhofer
Defendant: Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG
Rapporteur: R. Schintgen
Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed
Bench: 4 judges
V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61999CJ0381

Topics

History · 1 version

26 Jun 2001Reading

Connections

Interprets 2: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
Cited by 16: Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-321/21 P); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-353/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (C-320/21 P); K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd (C-624/19)2 provisions; I v Health Service Executive (C-255/13)2 provisions; Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-191/12)2 provisions; Margaret Kenny and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others (C-427/11)2 provisions; Kristine Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v European Commission (F-83/05); Javier Torijano Montero v Council of the European Union (F-76/05); Gudrun Schulze v European Commission (F-36/05); B. F. Cadman v Health & Safety Executive (C-17/05)2 provisions; Vasiliki Nikoloudi v Organismos Tilepikoinonion Ellados AE (C-196/02)2 provisions; Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-35/01); Nicole Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co. KG (C-313/02)2 provisions; Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (C-285/02)2 provisions; A. G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group and Mitie Secure Services Ltd (C-320/00)2 provisions
Cites 16: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Douglas Harvey Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (C-262/88); Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark v Dansk Industri, formerly Industriens Arbejdsgivere, acting for Royal Copenhagen A/S (C-400/93); Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women; Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v Örebro läns landsting (C-236/98); Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss (109/88); Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse (C-309/97); Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena (43/75); Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v The Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (C-243/95); Birds Eye Walls Ltd. v Friedel M. Roberts (C-132/92); J.P. Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd (96/80); Gisela Rummler v Dato-Druck GmbH (237/85); Macarthys Ltd v Wendy Smith (129/79); Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (C-127/92); Bilka - Kaufhaus GmbH v Karin Weber von Hartz (170/84); Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez (C-167/97)