# C_2006224EN.01002001.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 20 June 2006 — Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen

(Case C-267/06)

(2006/C 224/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tadao Maruko

Applicant:

Defendant: Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a compulsory professional pension scheme, such as the scheme at issue in this case administered by the Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, a scheme similar to state schemes as referred to in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a compulsory professional pension scheme, such as the scheme at issue in this case administered by the Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, a scheme similar to state schemes as referred to in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1)?

1

| 2. | Are benefits paid by a compulsory professional pension institution to survivors in the form of widow's/widower's allowance to be construed as pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are benefits paid by a compulsory professional pension institution to survivors in the form of widow's/widower's allowance to be construed as pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

| 3. | Does Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC preclude regulations governing a supplementary pension scheme of the kind at issue here under which a registered partner does not receive a survivor's pension after the death of the partner like spouses do, even though he also lives in a caring and committed union formally entered into for life like spouses? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC preclude regulations governing a supplementary pension scheme of the kind at issue here under which a registered partner does not receive a survivor's pension after the death of the partner like spouses do, even though he also lives in a caring and committed union formally entered into for life like spouses?

| 4. | If the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative: Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation permissible by virtue of recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative: Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation permissible by virtue of recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78/EC?

| 5. | Would entitlement to the survivor's pension be restricted to periods from 17 May 1990 in the light of the case-law in Barber (Case C-262/88)? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Would entitlement to the survivor's pension be restricted to periods from 17 May 1990 in the light of the case-law in Barber (Case C-262/88)?

Barber

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16

1

---