CELEX: 62018CN0168
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-168/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer

201806150301954912018/C 231/081682018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803057822Case C-168/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN720120180305EN00087282Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG v Günther Bauer
   (Case C-168/18)2018/C 231/08Language of the case: German
      Referring court
   
   Bundesarbeitsgericht
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant on a point of law: Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein VVaG
   
      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Günther Bauer
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Is 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 (
                  1
               ) applicable if occupational old-age pension benefits are provided via an inter-occupational pension institution subject to State supervision of financial services, and, for financial reasons, that institution legitimately reduces its benefits with the consent of the supervisory authority, and, although the employer must assume liability for the reductions vis-à-vis the former employees under national law, its insolvency means that it is unable to discharge its obligation to offset those benefit reductions?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
            Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employee be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses, even though the former employee receives at least half of the benefits arising from his acquired pension rights?
         
      
            3.
         
         
            If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
            Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC have direct effect and, if a Member State has failed to transpose the Directive into national law or has failed to transpose it correctly, does that provision confer rights on the individual that he can assert against the Member State before a national court?
         
      
            4.
         
         
            If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative:
            Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State?
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.