Torna alla ricerca
Corte App. Brescia, 5.12.2024, pres. Matano, rel. Mossi, INPS (avv. Sferrazza) c. Rete Lenford e CGIL (avv.ti Guariso e Rizzi)
| |Congedo obbligatorio per paternità - art.27 bis d.lgs. 151/2000 – mancato riconoscimento al secondo genitore equivalente in una coppia di donne – contrasto con l’art. 3 Cost., con gli artt. 2 e 3 direttiva 2000/78/CE, con l’art. 4 direttiva 2019/1158/UE - questione di costituzionalità – rilevanza e non manifestamente infondatezza.
È rilevante e non manifestamente infondata la questione di costituzionalità dell’art.27-bis d.lgs. 151/2000 nella parte in cui non estende il diritto al congedo obbligatorio di dieci giorni alla madre secondo genitore (riconosciuta tale nei registri dello stato civile) nelle coppie di genitori composte da due donne, per contrasto con l’art. 3 (in quanto discrimina irragionevolmente il secondo genitore di una coppia omosessuale rispetto all’analoga posizione di un padre in una coppia eterosessuale); con gli artt. 2 e 3 della direttiva 2000/78/CE giacché costituisce discriminazione per orientamento sessuale nelle condizioni di lavoro; con l’art. 4 della direttiva 2019/1158 che impone il riconoscimento del congedo in tali casi, qualora l’ordinamento interno riconosca, come avvenuto per l’Italia, il secondo genitore equivalente.
Compulsory paternity leaving - Article 27-bis of Legislative Decree no. 151/2000 - failure to recognise the second equivalent parent in a female couple - conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, with Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC, with Article 4 of Directive 2019/1158/EU - issue of constitutionality - relevance and not manifestly unfounded
The question of the constitutionality of Article 27- bis d.lgs. 151/2000 is relevant and not manifestly unfounded in so far as it does not extend the right to ten days\' compulsory leave to the second parent (recognised as such in the civil status registers) in parental couples composed of two women, on the grounds that it is contrary to Article 3 (in so far as it unreasonably discriminates against the second parent of a homosexual couple compared to the analogous position of a father in a heterosexual couple); with Art. 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC since it constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in working conditions; with Article 4 of Directive 2019/1158, which requires the recognition of leave in such cases if the domestic law recognises, as in the case of Italy, the equivalent second parent.
Compulsory paternity leaving - Article 27-bis of Legislative Decree no. 151/2000 - failure to recognise the second equivalent parent in a female couple - conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, with Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC, with Article 4 of Directive 2019/1158/EU - issue of constitutionality - relevance and not manifestly unfounded
The question of the constitutionality of Article 27- bis d.lgs. 151/2000 is relevant and not manifestly unfounded in so far as it does not extend the right to ten days\' compulsory leave to the second parent (recognised as such in the civil status registers) in parental couples composed of two women, on the grounds that it is contrary to Article 3 (in so far as it unreasonably discriminates against the second parent of a homosexual couple compared to the analogous position of a father in a heterosexual couple); with Art. 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC since it constitutes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in working conditions; with Article 4 of Directive 2019/1158, which requires the recognition of leave in such cases if the domestic law recognises, as in the case of Italy, the equivalent second parent.