25

In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Administrative Court, Halle, Germany) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the ex post facto percentage increase within the context of an age-related discriminatory pay system a new form of discrimination if the percentage increase is the same for all stages of a pay grade, the gap between those discriminated against and those not discriminated against therefore remaining unchanged in relative terms, even though it is changed in absolute terms? (2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is such a percentage increase across all age brackets justified in cases where the increase is due to the initial payment falling below a minimum set by the constitution of the Member State concerned? (3) Does EU law, in particular Article 9 of Directive [2000/78], preclude legislation under which a right to compensation for age-related discriminatory payment is barred after two months if: – the time limit starts with the delivery of the judgment of 8 September 2011, Hennigs and Mai, (C‑297/10 and C‑298/10, EU:C:2011:560), even though the person concerned is not covered by the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (Collective Agreement for Federal public sector contractual employees), and his personal situation is the same as that in [the case giving rise to the judgment of 19 June 2014, Specht and Others (C‑501/12 to C‑506/12, C‑540/12 and C‑541/12, EU:C:2014:2005), or in that giving rise to the judgment of 9 September 2015, Unland (C‑20/13, EU:C:2015:561)]; – the civil servants and judges concerned (employees) can become aware of the aforementioned judgment [of 8 September 2011, Hennigs and Mai (C‑297/10 and C‑298/10, EU:C:2011:560)] only from generally available public sources; – after that judgment was adopted, the employers stated that it did not apply to civil servants [or] judges and, in so doing, disputed the existence of age-related discrimination, that legal opinion having been made public, at least in part; – the case-law of the administrative courts at first instance has, for the most part, denied the existence of age-related discrimination during the time limit referred to and also subsequently, until delivery [of the judgment of 19 June 2014, Specht and Others (C‑501/12 to C‑506/12, C‑540/12 and C‑541/12, EU:C:2014:2005)]; – no decisions were handed down by the higher [national] courts during the time limit, the first decision by a highest instance court in this regard being handed down only after delivery [of the judgment of 19 June 2014, Specht and Others (C‑501/12 to C‑506/12, C‑540/12 and C‑541/12, EU:C:2014:2005)]; – as regards the employment relationship of civil servants and judges, time limits apply only to the reimbursement of certain expenditure and such periods are not less than six months; – actions relating to remuneration are subject to a three-year limitation period, starting from the end of the year in which entitlement to the right arose and the person concerned was aware of or ought to have been aware of the right, failing which the limitation period is ten years; – national actions relating to remuneration, which are not provided for by law, must be brought in a timely manner, that is, during the financial year in respect of which the right is claimed? (4) Does it affect the answer to question 3 if the legal position is unclear or confusing? (5) Is it sufficient for a time limit to be triggered if the category of disadvantaged persons is aware of the difference in treatment, or must the reason for the unequal treatment, that is the ground for differentiation, also be known?’