BVerwG 2 B 47/13, 2 B 47/13 (2 C 38/13)•Revision on age discrimination in public pay law
BVerwG 2 B 47/13, 2 B 47/13 (2 C 38/13)Bverwg / Divisão 224 de set. de 2013
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court found the revision suitable for clarifying three unresolved questions: whether former BBesG sections 27 and 28 violate the EU ban on age discrimination, whether a claim for pay above the statutory scale must be raised within the same budget year, and whether the sectoral exception in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/78/EC also covers national remuneration rules. The dispositive outcome is not stated in the excerpt.
Art. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 1 und 2 RL 2000/78/EG; Art. 3 Abs. 4 RL 2000/78/EG; §§ 27, 28 BBesG a.F.; the revision is admissible where clarification is needed on the compatibility of former civil-service pay rules with the prohibition of age discrimination, on the temporal assertion requirement for claims exceeding the statutory pay scale, and on the scope of the directive’s sectoral exception. The decision emphasizes the need to resolve these questions in the cassation review (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-09-24
Aktenzeichen: 2 B 47/13, 2 B 47/13 (2 C 38/13)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 20. Februar 2013, Az: 10 A 11217/12, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 2. Senat
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.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether former BBesG sections 27 and 28 comply with the EU prohibition of age discrimination.
The revision was considered suitable for clarifying whether the former pay provisions conflict with the prohibition of age discrimination.
The case raises an unresolved compatibility question under Art. 1 in conjunction with Art. 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/78/EC.
Whether a claim to pay above the statutory scale must be asserted within the current budget year.
The court identified this as a further clarifying question in the revision.
The timing requirement for asserting such a claim remained open and relevant to the appeal.
Whether the scope exception in Art. 3(4) of Directive 2000/78/EC extends to member-state remuneration rules.
The court identified this as a further clarifying question in the revision.
The reach of the directive’s sectoral exception to pay-law rules was uncertain and needed clarification.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.