Case C-24/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich
Date: 2017-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal pay, equal treatment, remuneration of work, right to justice








C_2017112EN.01002001.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich
(Case C-24/17)
(2017/C 112/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Questions referred







1.1.


Is European Union law, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a remuneration system which (in relation to the accreditation of previous service periods completed before the age of 18) discriminates on grounds of age is replaced by a new remuneration system, under which, however, the transition of existing public servants to the new remuneration system occurs in such a way that the new system is implemented retroactively to the date on which the original law entered into force, but the initial grading in the new remuneration system is based on the salary actually paid under the old remuneration system for a specific transition month (February 2015), with the result that the previously existing age discrimination continues in terms of its financial effects?










1.2.


If the answer to Question 1.1. is in the affirmative:
Is European Union law, in particular Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that existing public servants who were discriminated against in the old remuneration system in relation to the accreditation of previous service periods completed before the age of 18 must receive financial compensation if that age discrimination continues in terms of its financial effects even after transition to the new remuneration system?










1.3.


If the answer to Question 1.1. is in the negative:
Is European Union law, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that the fundamental right to effective legal protection enshrined therein precludes national legislation under which the age-discriminatory remuneration system is no longer to apply in current and future procedures and the transition of the remuneration of existing public servants to the new remuneration system is to be based solely on the salary calculated or paid for the transition month?










2.


Is European Union law, in particular Article 45 TFEU, Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the EU, (2) and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under which previous service periods completed by a contractual public servant






—


in an employment relationship with a local authority or municipal association of a Member State of the European Economic Area, the Republic of Turkey or the Swiss Confederation, or with an organisation of the European Union or an intergovernmental organisation of which Austria is a member, or with any similar body, must be accredited in their entirety,










—


in an employment relationship with another employer, only when exercising a relevant occupation or relevant administrative traineeship, up to a maximum of ten years in total?










(1)  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.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.