Abstract

In the law of the European Union, the 'right of reconciliation' emerges from four objectives or principles of law, mutually interdependent and potentially in conflict: two 'modest' objectives and two 'ambitious' objectives, distributed in the area of the relations between women and work and of the relations between work and family. The two less 'ambitious' objectives pertaining to work and family seem to go hand in hand: to protect the rights of the female worker and make motherhood less costly for the family, thus favouring the formation thereof. The two more ambitious objectives likewise seem to go hand in hand: to promote the equal representation of women and to promote a more equitable distribution of the tasks of providing care within the family. But, upon closer scrutiny, things turn out to be more complicated. The idea of this essay is to reread the more recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in the matter of reconciliation in light of this interpretative grid, and to show that certain of these objectives are mutually contradictory.