Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:467
Date: 2011-07-07
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Social Policy;Anti-discrimination;Fundamental rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Summary of the Judgment Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of provisions of Union law manifestly inapplicable in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU; Council Directives 2000/43, Art. 15, and 2000/78, Art. 17) A reference by a national court for a preliminary ruling may be rejected if, inter alia, it is obvious that Union law cannot be applied, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case. That applies to a reference for a preliminary ruling from a national court relating to Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the purpose of which is not to ascertain whether a situation in which persons are discriminated against as regards pay on the basis of socio-professional category or place of work falls within the scope of those provisions, but which is in fact based on the assumption that that is the case in order to seek an interpretation from the Court, even though those provisions of Union law clearly cannot be applied, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case. Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 and Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 clearly cannot be applied to discrimination as regards pay on the basis of socio-professional category or place of work. The principle of equal treatment enshrined in those directives applies by reference to the grounds exhaustively listed in Article 1 thereof. When, in regulating purely internal situations, domestic legislation seeks to adopt the same solutions as those adopted in Union law in order, for example, to avoid discrimination against foreign nationals or any distortion of competition or to provide for one single procedure in comparable situations, it is clearly in the Union interest that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, provisions or concepts taken from Union law should be interpreted uniformly, irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply. That is not the case where a national provision establishes a compensation scheme, pursuant to Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 and Article 17 of Directive 2000/78, for infringements of the rules prohibiting discrimination laid down by those directives, if that scheme also applies as regards infringements of the rules prohibiting discrimination applicable under national law alone. Moreover, the need to ensure uniform interpretation of the provisions of Union law can justify extending the Court’s jurisdiction to the content of such provisions, including in situations in which, because a rule of national law refers to such provisions, they are applicable indirectly to a given situation. Such a consideration cannot, however, without disregarding the divisions of powers between the Union and its Member States, confer on that provision of Union law primacy over higher‑ranking provisions of domestic law which would require, in such a situation, the rule of national law or any interpretation of it to be disregarded. (see paras 28, 32-34, 39-48, operative part)