# C_2023338EN.01000702.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2023 — HB v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-349/23, Zetschek (1))

(2023/C 338/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HB

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute direct discrimination on grounds of age within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (2) when, under Paragraph 48(2) of the German Law on Judges (Deutsches Richtergesetz, ‘the DRiG’), federal judges cannot postpone the start of their retirement, even though federal civil servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute direct discrimination on grounds of age within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (2) when, under Paragraph 48(2) of the German Law on Judges (Deutsches Richtergesetz, ‘the DRiG’), federal judges cannot postpone the start of their retirement, even though federal civil servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so?

| 2. | In the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, do elements derived from the general context of the measure at issue also include aspects that are not mentioned at all in the legislative material or in the course of the entire parliamentary legislative process, but are presented only during the judicial proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, do elements derived from the general context of the measure at issue also include aspects that are not mentioned at all in the legislative material or in the course of the entire parliamentary legislative process, but are presented only during the judicial proceedings?

| 3. | How are the terms ‘objectively’ and ‘reasonably’ in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted and what is their point of reference? Does the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Directive require a twofold examination of reasonableness? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How are the terms ‘objectively’ and ‘reasonably’ in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted and what is their point of reference? Does the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Directive require a twofold examination of reasonableness?

| 4. | Is the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as precluding, from the point of view of coherence, national legislation which precludes federal judges from postponing their retirement whereas federal public servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as precluding, from the point of view of coherence, national legislation which precludes federal judges from postponing their retirement whereas federal public servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so?

---

(1)  The present case is designated by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the actual name of a party to the proceedings.

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

---