Case C‑514/12

Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

v

Land Salzburg

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg)

‛Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg — Restriction of freedom of movement for workers — Justifications — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objective of rewarding loyalty — Administrative simplification — Transparency’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 5 December 2013

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Statement of the reasons why it is necessary to receive an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Promotion on grounds of seniority — National legislation under which account is to be taken of all uninterrupted periods of service completed with a local or regional authority and of only a proportion of any other periods of service — Not permissible

   (Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 492/2011, Art. 7(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 17-20)

2.  Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in determining the reference date for the purposes of the advancement of an employee of a local or regional authority to the next pay step in his grade, account is to be taken of all uninterrupted periods of service completed with that authority, but of only a proportion of any other periods of service.

   Such legislation is liable to restrict freedom of movement for workers, an effect which is in principle prohibited by Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 492/2011.

   Legislation of that kind cannot be accepted unless it pursues one of the legitimate aims listed in the Treaty or is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Even so, application of that measure still has to be such as to ensure achievement of the objective in question and must not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

   In that regard, even assuming that the legislation in question does indeed pursue an objective of rewarding workers’ loyalty to their employers, and even though such an objective may conceivably constitute an overriding reason in the public interest, given the characteristics of that legislation, the obstacle which it entails is not such as to ensure achievement of that objective, in so far as that legislation is intended to allow mobility within a group of distinct employers and not to reward the loyalty of an employee to a particular employer.

   In addition, it is not possible to accept that the aim of administrative simplification, designed merely to reduce the public administration’s workload, inter alia by simplifying the calculations which that administration must carry out, constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying the restriction of a freedom so fundamental as the freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU. Moreover, the fact that simplification of that kind makes it possible for administrative costs to be reduced is a purely economic consideration and in consequence cannot constitute an overriding reason in the public interest.

   Lastly, in so far as the national legislation at issue is intended to ensure greater transparency in the determination of the reference date for the purposes of advancement to higher pay steps, that legislation in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that aim: the desired transparency could be achieved through measures which do not restrict freedom of movement for workers, such as the establishment and publication or dissemination by appropriate means of predetermined and non‑discriminatory criteria for assessing the length of relevant professional experience for the purposes of advancement.

   (see paras 35, 36, 38, 40, 42- 45, operative part)