# C_2014282EN.01000402.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12) v Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-501/12 to C-506/12, C-540/12 and C-541/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment ‘in employment and occupation’ - Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) - Direct discrimination on grounds of age - Basic pay for civil servants dependent upon age - Transitional system - Perpetuation of the difference in treatment - Justifications - Right to compensation - Liability of the Member State - Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness))

2014/C 282/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12)

Applicants:

Defendants: Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for civil servants fall within the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for civil servants fall within the scope of that directive.

| 2) | Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, within each service grade, the step determining basic pay is to be allocated, at the time of recruitment, on the basis of the civil servant’s age. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, within each service grade, the step determining basic pay is to be allocated, at the time of recruitment, on the basis of the civil servant’s age.

| 3) | Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down the detailed rules governing the reclassification within a new remuneration system of civil servants who were established before that legislation entered into force, under which the pay step that they are now allocated is to be determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old system, notwithstanding the fact that that amount depended on discrimination based on the civil servant’s age, and advancement to the next step is now to depend exclusively on the experience acquired after that legislation entered into force. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down the detailed rules governing the reclassification within a new remuneration system of civil servants who were established before that legislation entered into force, under which the pay step that they are now allocated is to be determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old system, notwithstanding the fact that that amount depended on discrimination based on the civil servant’s age, and advancement to the next step is now to depend exclusively on the experience acquired after that legislation entered into force.

| 4) | In circumstances such as those of the cases before the referring court, EU law — and, in particular, Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 — does not require civil servants who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade;
  It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions, laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law. |
| --- | --- |

4)

In circumstances such as those of the cases before the referring court, EU law — and, in particular, Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 — does not require civil servants who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade;

It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions, laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.

| 5) | EU law does not preclude a national rule, like the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the civil servant to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5)

EU law does not preclude a national rule, like the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the civil servant to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---