Case C‑539/15

Daniel Bowman

v

Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2) — Discrimination on grounds of age — Collective labour agreement — Extension of the period of advancement from the first to the second step in the salary scale — Indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 21 December 2016

Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Collective labour agreement laying down a longer period of advancement from the first to the second salary step than that which applies to advancements between subsequent steps — Lawfulness — Condition — Longer period applicable to any employee who benefits from account being taken of periods of school education for the purpose of his classification in the salary steps

(Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2(1) and (2) )

Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national collective labour agreement under which an employee, who benefits from account being taken of periods of school education for the purpose of his classification in the salary steps, is subject to a longer period of advancement between the first and second salary step, as long as that extension applies to every employee benefiting from the inclusion of those periods, including retroactively to those having already reached the next steps.

Such an agreement does not lead to a difference in treatment on grounds of age in respect of such an employee.

In addition, the classification of Administration employees in the salary steps depends in particular on completed periods of school education. Those periods of school education may be taken into account for the purposes of that classification, regardless of the age of the employee at the time of recruitment. Therefore, such a scheme is based on criterion which is neither inextricably nor indirectly linked to the age of employees.

Consequently, even if a young worker, newly recruited and with little experience, who asks for his periods of school education to be taken into account for classification in the salary steps, will, in practice, be subject to the extension in the period for advancement within the first step, it remains the case that an older worker benefiting from a substantial period of service with the Administration and making an identical request, will also and on the same grounds, potentially or retroactively, be subject to the same extension.

(see paras 23, 28, 30, 33, operative part)