CELEX: 62018CA0168
Language: en
Date: 2019-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-168/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Supplementary pension schemes — Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits — Minimum guaranteed level of protection — Former employer’s obligation to offset a reduction in an occupational old-age pension — External pension institution — Direct effect)

24.2.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 61/3
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer
      (Case C-168/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Supplementary pension schemes - Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits - Minimum guaranteed level of protection - Former employer’s obligation to offset a reduction in an occupational old-age pension - External pension institution - Direct effect)
      (2020/C 61/03)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Bundesarbeitsgericht
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG
      
         Defendant: Günther Bauer
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which an employer, which provides occupational old-age pension benefits through an inter-occupational institution, cannot, on account of its insolvency, offset losses resulting from a reduction in the amount of those benefits paid by the inter-occupational institution, a reduction which was authorised by the State supervisory authority for financial services which is the prudential regulator for that institution.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that a reduction in the amount of occupational old-age pension benefits paid to a former employee, on account of the insolvency of his or her former employer, is regarded as being manifestly disproportionate, even though the former employee receives at least half of the amount of the benefits arising from his or her acquired rights, where, as a result of the reduction, the former employee is already living, or would have to live, below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold determined by Eurostat for the Member State concerned.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, which lays down an obligation to provide a minimum degree of protection, is capable of having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon against an institution governed by private law that is designated by the State as the institution which guarantees occupational pensions against the risk of an employer’s insolvency where, in the light of the task with which it is vested and the circumstances in which it performs the task, that institution can be treated as comparable to the State, provided that the task of providing a guarantee with which the institution is vested actually covers the type of old-age benefits in respect of which the minimum degree of protection provided for in Article 8 is sought.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.