Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:418
Date: 2010-07-08
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 (Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 9(1) and (3)) 2. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 (Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 8(2)) 1. The primary law of the European Union and Article 9 of Council Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule under which a victim of discrimination in recruitment on grounds of age must make a claim against the perpetrator of that discrimination within two months in order to obtain compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, provided: - firstly, that that time-limit is not less favourable than that applicable to similar domestic actions in employment law, - secondly, that the fixing of the point from which that time-limit starts to run does not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Directive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those two conditions are met. In order to establish whether the principle of equivalence has been observed, it is for the national court, which alone has direct knowledge of the procedural rules governing actions in the field of employment law, to consider both the purpose and the essential characteristics of allegedly similar domestic actions. Moreover, every case in which the question arises as to whether a national procedural provision is less favourable than those concerning similar domestic actions must be analysed by the national court by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its conduct and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national bodies. The laying down of reasonable limitation periods for bringing proceedings satisfies, in principle, the requirement of effectiveness inasmuch as it constitutes an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty. Such time-limits are not liable to render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law. Subject to that reservation, the Member States remain at liberty to fix longer or shorter limitation periods. As regards limitation periods, the Court has also held that, in respect of national legislation which comes within the scope of Community law, it is for the Member States to establish those periods in the light of, inter alia, the significance for the parties concerned of the decisions to be taken, the complexities of the procedures and of the legislation to be applied, the number of persons who may be affected and any other public or private interests which must be taken into consideration. (see paras 28-29, 36, 42, operative part 1) 2. Article 8 of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule, adopted in order to implement the Directive, which has the effect of amending earlier legislation which provided for a time-limit for claiming compensation for discrimination on grounds of sex. In any event, since Article 1 of the Directive does not refer to sex as a ground for discrimination, any reduction in the level of protection against discrimination based on that ground cannot be regarded as falling within the fields covered by the Directive. (see paras 45, 47, operative part 2)