Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62008CN0147

    Case C-147/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 April 2008 — Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

    OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 15–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.7.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 171/15

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 April 2008 — Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

    (Case C-147/08)

    (2008/C 171/26)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Jürgen Römer

    Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are supplementary pension payments, governed by the Erstes Ruhegeldgesetz (First law on retirement pensions or ‘First RGG’) of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, to former employees of the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg and their survivors ‘payments of any kind made by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), with the consequence that the matters governed by the First RGG fall outside the scope of that directive (‘the Directive’)?

    2.

    If the above question is answered in the negative:

    2.1

    Are the provisions of the First RGG which differentiate, in calculating the amount of pension payable, between married pensioners and all other pensioners, that is, which treat married pensioners more favourably than, specifically, persons who have formed a civil partnership (Lebenspartnerschaft) with a person of the same sex in accordance with the Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz (Law on civil partnership) of the Federal Republic of Germany, ‘laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon’ within the meaning of recital 22 in the preamble to the Directive?

    2.2

    If the above question is answered in the affirmative:

    Does it follow that the Directive does not apply to those provision of the First RGG, even though the Directive itself contains no limitation of its scope corresponding to recital 22 in the preamble?

    3.

    If Question 2.1 or Question 2.2 is answered in the negative:

    In relation to a person who has a formed a civil partnership with a person of the same sex and who is not permanently separated from the latter, does Paragraph 10(6) of the First RGG, under which the pension entitlements of married, not permanently separated, pensioners are calculated on the basis of the notional application of tax category III/0 (more favourable to a taxable person) but the pension entitlements of all other pensioners are calculated on the basis of the notional application of tax category I (less favourable to a taxable person), constitute an infringement of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2 and with Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive?

    4.

    If Question 1 or Question 2(2) is answered in the affirmative or Question 3 is answered in the negative:

    Does Paragraph 10(6) of the First RGG infringe Article 141 EC or a general principle of Community law by reason of the provision or legal effect described in Question 3?

    5.

    If Question 3 or Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:

    Does it follow that — until such time as Paragraph 10(6) of the First RGG is amended to remove the unequal treatment complained of — in relation to the calculation of his pension entitlement a pensioner who has formed a civil partnership and is not permanently separated from his partner is entitled to insist that the defendant treats him in the same manner as it does as a married, not permanently separated, pensioner? If so — if the Directive is applicable and Question 3 is answered in the affirmative — does this entitlement apply even before the expiry of the transposition period prescribed in Article 18(1) of the Directive?

    6.

    If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative:

    Is that subject to the qualification — in accordance with the grounds of the Court's judgment in Case C-262/88 Barber — that in the calculation of pension entitlement the principle of equal treatment is to be applied only in respect of that proportion of pension entitlement earned by the pensioner for the period from 17 May 1990?

    (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

    Top