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 62013CN0530

    Case C-530/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

    OJ C 15, 18.1.2014, p. 3–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.1.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 15/3

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

    (Case C-530/13)

    2014/C 15/04

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Verwaltungsgerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant: Leopold Schmitzer

    Respondent authority: Bundesministerin für Inneres

    Questions referred

    1.

    Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if, upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system of salary advancement for new civil servants, an old civil servant who suffered discrimination under the former legal situation (as a result of the ineligibility, for advancement purposes, of periods completed before the age of 18) may make a request to opt in to the new system and thereby obtain an advancement reference date calculated on a non-discriminatory basis, but the effect of granting such a request under national law is that, because of the slower advancement provided for in the new system, his remuneration status (and thus ultimately the salary payable to him) does not improve, despite the improvement of the advancement reference date, to such an extent that he acquires the same remuneration status as an old civil servant afforded favourable treatment in a discriminatory manner under the former legal situation (who is not required to demonstrate comparable periods before, but after the age of 18, which were already credited to him under the former legal situation) who does not feel compelled to opt in to the new system?

    2.

    If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see in particular Question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings to determine remuneration status even if he has previously obtained an improvement of the advancement reference date in the new system by making a request to that effect?

    3.

    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a distinction, which continues to be maintained upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system for new civil servants, in respect of the remuneration status of old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in, on the one hand, and old civil servants who still suffer discrimination despite opting in, on the other, justified in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive, as a transitional phenomenon, on grounds of procedural economy, or protection of established advantages or legitimate expectations even where

    (a)

    the national legislature is not, in regulating the advancement system, required to obtain the approval of parties to the collective bargaining agreement and is obliged merely to act within the fundamental limits of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, which does not necessitate the full protection of established advantages in the form of the complete retention of the earlier system for old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in;

    (b)

    the national legislature would also have been free, in this connection, to establish equality among old civil servants by crediting periods before the age of 18 whilst retaining the earlier rules on advancement for old civil servants who previously suffered discrimination;

    (c)

    the associated administrative burden would be considerable on account of the large number of requests to be expected but, as far as its expenditure is concerned, does not come anywhere near the total amount of earnings lost and to be lost in future by the civil servants who suffer discrimination in comparison with the civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment;

    (d)

    the transitional periods with the continued existence of unequal treatment between old civil servants last many decades and will also affect the vast majority of all civil servants for a very long time (as a result of the general ‘freeze on recruitment’ of new civil servants in a public-law employment relationship);

    (e)

    there was a retroactive introduction of the system that impaired, to the detriment of the civil servant, the legal situation which had to be implemented, having regard to the primacy of EU law, at least between 1 January 2004 and 30 August 2010 and was more favourable to the civil servant, which the civil servant had requested be applied to his case even before the amending law was adopted?

    If Questions 1 or 2 are answered in the negative or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

    4.

    (a)

    Does legislation which provides for a longer advancement period for periods of employment at the beginning of the career and thus makes advancement to the next salary grade more difficult constitute indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age?

    (b)

    If so, is it appropriate and necessary in the light of the small amount of professional experience at the beginning of the career?

    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

    5.

    (a)

    Does legislation which credits the full value of ‘other periods’ for up to three years, and half the value of such periods for up to a further three years, even where they are not for the purposes of either school education or gaining professional experience, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

    (b)

    If so, is it justified in order to avoid a deterioration in the remuneration status of civil servants (who clearly also include new civil servants) who do not have suitable eligible periods before the age of 18 even though eligibility also covers other periods after the age of 18?

    6.

    If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 4(b) is answered in the negative and, at the same time, Question 3 is answered in the affirmative or Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 5(b) in the negative:

    Do the discriminatory characteristics of the new rules which then exist mean that the unequal treatment of old civil servants is no longer justified as a transitional phenomenon?

    (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

    Top