# C_2023278EN.01001701.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2023 — GM v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-333/23, Habonov (1))

(2023/C 278/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gießen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GM

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the provisions on the remuneration of judges in force in the Member State of the referring court, such as follow from the Gesetz zur weiteren Anpassung der Besoldung und Versorgung im Jahr 2023 sowie im Jahr 2024 (Law on the further adjustment of remuneration and pensions of civil servants in 2023 and 2024) of the Land Hesse (Drucksache20/9499 of the Landtag of Hesse), if, at the end of a period to be determined by the Court of Justice which begins on notification of the decision of the Court, the Land of Hesse has not adopted legislation on the remuneration of judges which complies with European standards? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the provisions on the remuneration of judges in force in the Member State of the referring court, such as follow from the Gesetz zur weiteren Anpassung der Besoldung und Versorgung im Jahr 2023 sowie im Jahr 2024 (Law on the further adjustment of remuneration and pensions of civil servants in 2023 and 2024) of the Land Hesse (Drucksache20/9499 of the Landtag of Hesse), if, at the end of a period to be determined by the Court of Justice which begins on notification of the decision of the Court, the Land of Hesse has not adopted legislation on the remuneration of judges which complies with European standards?

| 2. | Are Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that the remuneration of judges in Grade R 6 of the Bundesbesoldungsgesetz (Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants) in the Member State of the referring court be linked to the condition of having reached the age of 35, with the result that the judges of that Member State who have hitherto received a remuneration that is lower than that of Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants, must be paid at the level of the amount laid down for Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants, and that those judges of the Member State of the referring court, who, under national legislation, have applied for remuneration appropriate to their role for previous financial years or have brought an action against their inappropriate remuneration for the previous financial years, may claim the difference in remuneration compared to Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants for the previous years in which they were active? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that the remuneration of judges in Grade R 6 of the Bundesbesoldungsgesetz (Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants) in the Member State of the referring court be linked to the condition of having reached the age of 35, with the result that the judges of that Member State who have hitherto received a remuneration that is lower than that of Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants, must be paid at the level of the amount laid down for Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants, and that those judges of the Member State of the referring court, who, under national legislation, have applied for remuneration appropriate to their role for previous financial years or have brought an action against their inappropriate remuneration for the previous financial years, may claim the difference in remuneration compared to Grade R 6 of the Federal Law on remuneration of civil servants for the previous years in which they were active?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---