# C_2020137EN.01001901.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Germany) — TK (C-773/18), UL (C-774/18), VM (C-775/18) v Land Sachsen-Anhalt

(Joined Cases C-773/18 to C-775/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2 and 6 - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Remuneration of officials - Discriminatory system of remuneration - Back-pay calculated on the basis of an earlier discriminatory grading - New discrimination - Article 9 - Compensation as a result of discriminatory legislation - Limitation period for the bringing of a claim for compensation - Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness)

(2020/C 137/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Halle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TK (C-773/18), UL (C-774/18), VM (C-775/18)

Defendant: Land Sachsen-Anhalt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 2 and 6 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 not precluding a measure which awards officials and judges, in order to ensure that they receive adequate remuneration, back-pay based on a percentage of the basic salary which they previously received under, inter alia, a basic pay scale which was determined, for each grade, on recruitment, on the basis of their age, provided that it meets the need to ensure the protection of acquired rights in a situation particularly marked both by the high number of officials and judges concerned and by the lack of a valid system of reference and does not lead to a perpetuation in time of a difference in treatment on grounds of age; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 2 and 6 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 not precluding a measure which awards officials and judges, in order to ensure that they receive adequate remuneration, back-pay based on a percentage of the basic salary which they previously received under, inter alia, a basic pay scale which was determined, for each grade, on recruitment, on the basis of their age, provided that it meets the need to ensure the protection of acquired rights in a situation particularly marked both by the high number of officials and judges concerned and by the lack of a valid system of reference and does not lead to a perpetuation in time of a difference in treatment on grounds of age;

| 2. | The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting the starting point of a limitation period of two months for the bringing of a claim for compensation for the harm resulting from a measure constituting discrimination on grounds of age at the date of the delivery of a judgment of the Court finding that a similar measure is discriminatory, where there is a risk that the persons concerned may not be in a position to become aware, within that time limit, of the existence or extent of the discrimination of which they were the victims. That may be the case in particular where, in that Member State, there is controversy surrounding the possibility of transposing to the measure concerned the guidance provided by that judgment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting the starting point of a limitation period of two months for the bringing of a claim for compensation for the harm resulting from a measure constituting discrimination on grounds of age at the date of the delivery of a judgment of the Court finding that a similar measure is discriminatory, where there is a risk that the persons concerned may not be in a position to become aware, within that time limit, of the existence or extent of the discrimination of which they were the victims. That may be the case in particular where, in that Member State, there is controversy surrounding the possibility of transposing to the measure concerned the guidance provided by that judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---