—

the time limit starts with the delivery of the judgment of 8 September 2011, Hennigs and Mai, C-297/10 and C-298/10, EU:C:2011:560 although the person concerned is not covered by the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (Federal Collective Agreement for contractual employees), but his personal situation is the same as in the judgment of 9 September 2015, Unland (C-20/13, EU:C:2015:561);

—

the aforementioned judgment can be obtained from the officials and judges concerned (employees) only from general public sources;

—

the employers have denied transferability to officials following the delivery of the abovementioned judgment, thereby denying the existence of age discrimination, whereby that legal opinion has also been communicated externally, at least partially;

—

the case-law of the administrative courts at first instance has, for the most part, denied the existence of age discrimination within the time limit referred to and also subsequently, until delivery of the judgment of 19 June 2014, Specht and Others, C-501/12 to C-506/12, C-540/12 and C-541/12, EU:C:2014:2005;

—

the case-law of the higher courts did not exist within the time limit and the first decision at highest instance was only taken following the delivery of the judgment in Specht and Others;

—

in the civil service or judicial relationship (employment relationship) exclusion periods apply only to the reimbursement of special costs and such periods are not shorter than six months;

—

Rights to salary (remuneration) are subject to a three-year limitation period, starting from the end of the year in which the right has become due and the beneficiary is aware of or ought to be aware of the right, or a limitation period of ten years runs;

—

national rights to salary (remuneration), which are not legally fixed in a timely manner, i.e. within the financial year for which it is sought, are to be asserted?