The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
BVerwG 2 B 46/13, 2 B 46/13 (2 C 36/13)•Revision allowed on age discrimination in basic pay
BVerwG 2 B 46/13, 2 B 46/13 (2 C 36/13)Bverwg / Division 2Sep 24, 2013Granted
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court admitted the revision in a case about the old federal civil-service pay scheme. It held that the appeal presents questions of fundamental importance concerning possible age discrimination under Directive 2000/78/EC, the timeliness of claims for higher pay within the budget year, and the scope of the directive's sectoral exception for national pay rules.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance: A revision is to be admitted where the legal dispute raises unresolved questions of general significance requiring clarification in the interest of uniform development of the law. This is in particular the case where compatibility of §§ 27, 28 BBesG a.F. with the prohibition of age discrimination under Art. 1, Art. 2(1)(2) RL 2000/78/EG, the temporal assertion requirement for claims to remuneration beyond the statutory scale, and the scope of Art. 3(4) RL 2000/78/EG are at issue.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-09-24
Aktenzeichen: 2 B 46/13, 2 B 46/13 (2 C 36/13)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 27aF BBesG, § 28aF BBesG, Art 1 EGRL 78/2000, Art 2 Abs 1 EGRL 78/2000, Art 2 Abs 2 EGRL 78/2000, Art 3 Abs 4 EGRL 78/2000, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO, § 27 BBesG, § 28 BBesG
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 20. Februar 2013, Az: 10 A 11216/12, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat
Bemessung des Grundgehalts; Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung; Revisionszulassung
1 Das Revisionsverfahren erscheint geeignet zur Klärung beizutragen, ob die Vorschriften der §§ 27 und 28 BBesG a.F. gegen das Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung aus Art. 1 i.V.m. Art. 2 Abs. 1 und 2 der RL 2000/78/EG verstoßen, ob der Anspruch auf eine über das Gesetz (§§ 27 und 28 BBesG a.F.) hinausgehende Besoldung innerhalb des laufenden Haushaltsjahres geltend zu machen ist und ob sich die Bereichsausnahme des Art. 3 Abs. 4 der RL 2000/78/EG auch auf besoldungsrechtliche Regelungen der Mitgliedstaaten erstreckt.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted because the old basic-pay provisions in §§ 27 and 28 BBesG may violate the EU prohibition of age discrimination.
The case raises a question of fundamental importance suitable for clarification in revision.
The court saw a need to clarify whether §§ 27 and 28 BBesG a.F. are compatible with Art. 1 and Art. 2(1)(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC.
Whether a claim for higher remuneration beyond the statute must be asserted within the current budget year.
The court considered this an additional question requiring clarification in revision.
The matter was identified as part of the legal clarification sought in the revision proceedings.
Whether the sectoral exception in Art. 3(4) of Directive 2000/78/EC also covers national pay rules for civil servants.
The court considered this issue suitable for revision review.
The scope of the directive's exception in relation to national remuneration law was expressly flagged as needing clarification.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.