CELEX: 62018CA0049
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-49/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Carlos Escribano Vindel v Ministerio de Justicia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Budgetary austerity measures — Reduction of remuneration in the national civil service — Method — Differential impact — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2)(b) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Judicial independence — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU)

8.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/13
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Carlos Escribano Vindel v Ministerio de Justicia
      (Case C-49/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Budgetary austerity measures - Reduction of remuneration in the national civil service - Method - Differential impact - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(b) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Judicial independence - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU)
      (2019/C 131/15)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Carlos Escribano Vindel
      
         Defendant: Ministerio de Justicia
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1) and (2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which established, in the context of general salary-reduction measures linked to the requirements of eliminating an excessive budget deficit, different percentage reductions for the basic salary and additional remuneration of members of the judiciary, which, according to the referring court has entailed greater percentage reductions for those members of the judiciary on two lower pay grades than those members of the judiciary on a higher pay grade, when the former receive a lower salary, are generally younger and generally have a shorter length of service than the latter.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude the application to the applicant in the main proceedings of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which established, without regard to the nature of the duties performed, length of service or the importance of the tasks performed, in the context of general salary-reduction measures linked to the requirements of eliminating an excessive budget deficit, different percentage reductions for the basic salary and additional remuneration of members of the judiciary, which, according to the referring court has entailed greater percentage salary reductions for those members of the judiciary on two lower pay grades than those members of the judiciary on a higher pay grade, when the former are paid less than the latter, provided that the level of remuneration received by the applicant in the main proceedings after application of the salary reduction at issue is commensurate with the importance of the duties he performs and, accordingly, guarantees his independent judgment, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.