论文部分内容阅读
有一天,爱尔兰妇女玛丽·莫菲和她的几个同事突然发现,她们受到了不公正待遇:工作比有些男人重,但报酬却比他们少。一场官司打到了欧洲法院:她们的工作单位是否违反了《罗马条约》第119条所规定的“同工同酬”原则?几番周折之后,卢森堡宫的13名大法官最后公断:违反了。不过,不太明显……几年来,《欧洲妇女》这本由共同体编印的小册子公布了一系列这类的讼端,诸如:雷纳尼监狱长是否有权将前来谋职的萨宾娜和卡曼拒之门外,理由是她们是女的?南安普敦的马歇尔女士是否因为要比男人早5年退休而成为性别歧视的受害者?为什么英国退休铁路女工加尔兰被剥夺了减价火车票的待遇,而退休男工人却依然能享受这种优惠?欧洲各国妇女的处境是那么不同,以致使这支庞大的队伍显得非常不协调:今天,在宪法上,爱
One day, Irish woman Mary Murphy and several of her colleagues suddenly realized that they were treated unfairly: they were heavier than some men but paid less than they did. A lawsuit hit the European Court of Justice: did their work units violate the principle of “equal pay for work of equal value” as stipulated in article 119 of the Treaty of Rome? After so many twists and turns, the 13 judges of the Luxembourg Palace finally went out of business: a violation. However, it is less obvious ... For a few years, this community-printed pamphlet “European Women” has published a series of such litigants, such as: Is Reginal Reneney the right to bring in Sabine Na and Kaman are denied access because they are female? Is Ms. Marshall of Southampton a victim of gender discrimination because she retires 5 years earlier than a man? And why Garland, a retired female railway worker in the United Kingdom, is deprived of the sale Train tickets, while retired male workers can still enjoy this preferential treatment? The situation of women in European countries is so different that this huge team appears very uncoordinated: Today, in the constitution, love