# C_2009090EN.01000701.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

(Case C-542/08)

2009/C 90/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friedrich G. Barth

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the application of a limitation rule providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings in which on grounds of a domestic law situation incompatible with Community law, prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01), migrant workers were refused special length-of-service increments constitute for the purposes of Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) indirect discrimination against migrant workers or a restriction on the right to freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by those provisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the application of a limitation rule providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings in which on grounds of a domestic law situation incompatible with Community law, prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01), migrant workers were refused special length-of-service increments constitute for the purposes of Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) indirect discrimination against migrant workers or a restriction on the right to freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by those provisions?

Köbler

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Do Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings — preclude the application of such a limitation rule on special length-of-service increments refused to migrant workers prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01) on grounds of a domestic law situation which was incompatible with Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Do Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings — preclude the application of such a limitation rule on special length-of-service increments refused to migrant workers prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01) on grounds of a domestic law situation which was incompatible with Community law?

Köbler

| 3. | In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to claims seeking to enforce an entitlement to length-of-service increment previously denied — contrary to Community law — on the basis of unambiguously worded national legislation, does the principle of effectiveness preclude the application of limitation rules providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to claims seeking to enforce an entitlement to length-of-service increment previously denied — contrary to Community law — on the basis of unambiguously worded national legislation, does the principle of effectiveness preclude the application of limitation rules providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475

1

---