14.2.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 73/9
Parties to the main proceedings Appellants on a point of law: FW, CE Respondent authorities: Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich, Finanzamt Österreich
Questions referred 1.
Is EU 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 discriminates on grounds of age is replaced by a remuneration system, under which the classification of a civil servant continues to be determined on the basis of the remuneration seniority determined with effect from a particular transition month (February 2015) in a discriminatory manner under the old remuneration system and, in that context, is subject to a correction in respect of the initially determined previous periods of service through the determination of a comparison reference date, but under which, with regard to the periods completed after the civil servant’s 18th birthday, only the other periods, of which half must be taken into account, are subject to review, and under which the four-year extension of the period in which previous periods of service must be taken into account is juxtaposed with the fact that the other periods, of which half must be taken into account, must be accredited as periods preceding the date of appointment in the determination of the comparison reference date only in so far as they exceed the total amount of four years, of which half must be taken into account (flat-rate deduction of four years, of which half must be taken into account)? 2.
Is Question 1 to be answered differently in respect of proceedings in which, although a new advancement reference date was already definitively determined before the entry into force of the 2.
Dienstrechts-Novelle 2019 (2nd Law amending the rules relating to public servants 2019), that date still had no effect on the civil servant’s remuneration status because the authority had not yet taken a decision in direct application of EU law, and in which the comparison reference date must now once again be redetermined by reference to the advancement reference date determined in an age-discriminatory manner without taking into account the advancement reference date determined in the meantime, and the other periods, of which half must be taken into account, are subject to the flat-rate deduction? 3.
Is EU law, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, despite the redetermination of remuneration seniority and remuneration status, periods in a training relationship with a domestic local or regional authority must be accredited as periods preceding the date of appointment in the determination of the comparison reference date only if the civil servant entered the employment relationship after 31 March 2000 and, otherwise, those periods are accredited only as other periods, of which half must be taken into account, and are thus subject to the flat-rate deduction, with the result that that legislation tends to disadvantage longer-serving civil servants?
(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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2021 — VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) v Vlaams Gewest (Case C-658/21) (2022/C 73/12) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Raad van State
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) Defendant: Vlaams Gewest