# C_2016232EN.01000301.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2016 — H. v Land Berlin

Land

(Case C-174/16)

(2016/C 232/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant: Land

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (1) and the provisions of the Framework Agreement on parental leave published in the annex to that directive to be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which the probationary period, during which an executive post has been assigned to a person with the status of a civil servant on probation, ends by operation of law and with no possibility of extension even in the case where the male or female civil servant has been and still is on parental leave for most of that probationary period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (1) and the provisions of the Framework Agreement on parental leave published in the annex to that directive to be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which the probationary period, during which an executive post has been assigned to a person with the status of a civil servant on probation, ends by operation of law and with no possibility of extension even in the case where the male or female civil servant has been and still is on parental leave for most of that probationary period?

1

| 2. | Are the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (2), in particular Article 14(1)(a) or (c), Article 15 or Article 16 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that rules of national law with the content referred to in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in the case where a very much higher number of women than men is affected, or may potentially be affected, by those rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (2), in particular Article 14(1)(a) or (c), Article 15 or Article 16 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that rules of national law with the content referred to in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in the case where a very much higher number of women than men is affected, or may potentially be affected, by those rules?

2

| 3. | If the answers to Questions 1 or 2 are in the affirmative, does the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of EU law preclude such rules of national law even in the case where the latter are justified by the objective of being able to assess, during the probationary period, the probation for an executive post to be assigned permanently only if the duties are actually performed continuously over a lengthy period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to Questions 1 or 2 are in the affirmative, does the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of EU law preclude such rules of national law even in the case where the latter are justified by the objective of being able to assess, during the probationary period, the probation for an executive post to be assigned permanently only if the duties are actually performed continuously over a lengthy period?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is also in the affirmative, does the interpretation of European law allow a legal consequence other than continuation of the probationary period immediately following the end of the parental leave — for the duration of the period not yet elapsed at the beginning of the parental leave — for the same or a comparable official position, in the case where, for example, such a position or an equivalent established post is no longer available? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is also in the affirmative, does the interpretation of European law allow a legal consequence other than continuation of the probationary period immediately following the end of the parental leave — for the duration of the period not yet elapsed at the beginning of the parental leave — for the same or a comparable official position, in the case where, for example, such a position or an equivalent established post is no longer available?

| 5. | Does the interpretation of European law require, in this case, for the purpose of filling another official position or another executive post, that a new selection procedure including other candidates in accordance with the provisions of national law should not be held? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the interpretation of European law require, in this case, for the purpose of filling another official position or another executive post, that a new selection procedure including other candidates in accordance with the provisions of national law should not be held?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

2

---