EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CN0045

Case C-45/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2009 — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH

OJ C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.5.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/10


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2009 — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-45/09)

2009/C 102/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gisela Rosenbladt

Defendant: Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred

1.

Following the entry into force of the German General law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz; ‘the AGG’) are the rules under collective law, which discriminate based on age, compatible with the prohibition of age discrimination in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, without the AGG expressly permitting this (as was previously the case in Paragraph 10 Sentence 3 Point 7 of the AGG)?

2.

Does a national rule that permits the state, the parties to a collective agreement and the parties to an individual employment contract to specify the automatic termination of an employment relationship upon reaching a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65), contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation if, according to established practice in place for several decades in the Member State, clauses of this type have consistently applied to the employment relationships of nearly all workers, irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and the actual labour market situation?

3.

Does a collective agreement that permits an employer to end an employment relationship at a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65), contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation if, according to established practice in place for several decades in the Member State, clauses of this type have consistently applied to the employment relationships of nearly all workers, irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and the actual labour market situation?

4.

Does a state that declares a collective agreement permitting employers to end employment relationships at a specific fixed age (in this case: reaching the age of 65) to be generally applicable and upholds this extension contravene the prohibition of age discrimination laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, if this is effected irrespective of the prevailing economic, social and demographic state of affairs and irrespective of the actual labour market situation?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


Top