Austria / Highest Administrative Court / Ra 2015/12/0078

A retired professor v Federal Administrative Court
Policy area
Employment and social policy
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Highest Administrative Court
Typ
Decision
Decision date
21/01/2016

 

a) The relevance of the Charter for the present case consists in the simple mentioning of Art47 para 2 CFR next to Art6 para 1 ECHR. By doing this, the right to a fair trial as it is provided in the CFR gets as much attention and significance as the ECHR.

b) the contribution of the decision described to the overall role of the Charter in the national legal system: The contribution of the decision lies in the simple mentioning of the CFR, which in turn helps manifesting it in the national jurisprudence.

  • Austria / Highest Administrative Court / Ra 2015/12/0078

    Key facts of the case:

    A retired professor received a decision (11 February 2015; received on 17 February 2015) by the Viennese education authority which set her advance date for the usage group L1 on 28 February 1973. With decision of 22 July 2015 the before mentioned decision was repealed. The party represented the legal opinion that the same legal situation, as it was the case on 11 February 2015 with the version BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015, would also apply for delivery of the decision on 17 February. The party argued that the decision of 11 Feburary 2015 violated § 113 Gehaltsgesetz (GehG). The party filed a complaint against the decision of 22 July 2015 to the Federal Administrative Court. The mentioned decision  was repealed, but a revison to the Highest Administrative Court was declared inadmissible. The party then filed an ‘extraordinary revision’ to the Highest Administrative Court, which was however rejected due to the lack of requirements of Art133 (4) B-VG.

    As for the presented case, the relevant legal norms are: Art133 (4) of the Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, B-VG) ; §68 (2) General Administrative Proecdures Act 1991 (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz 1991, AVG) ; §13 (1) Service law procedural act 1984 (Dienstrechtsverfahrensgesetz 1984, DVG 1984) ; §§ 12, 13, 113 (10) and 169c (2) Salary Act 1956 (Gehaltsgesetz 1956, GehG) ; Art6 ECHR; Art34 (1) Administrative Court Act 1985 (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz 1985, VwGG) ; Artt 2 and 9 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

    Key legal questions comprise the applicability of law, the relevant legal situation, the relationship between provisions and Union law, partial non-application of national law and primacy of Union law.

    Outcome of the case:

    The party’s ‘extraordinary revision’ was rejected due to the lack of requirements of Art133 (4) B-VG. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

     

    The latter was, in turn, the only national procedure envisaged by the Austrian legislature intended to enforce a non-discriminatory salary (however, in this regard see the relevant finding of 16 November 2015, Ra 2015/12/0013). The before-cited Federal Constitutional Court’s legal opinion, whereupon public officials who submit an application pursuant to Article 113 (10) GehG, must not be denied a reassessment of the advance date as part of the procedure for retroactively obtaining salary terms for the salary periods prior to the entering into force of the amendment BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015 (and thus also for the month of transition according to § 169c para 2 GehG) based on reasons of Art47 para 2 CFR , Art6 para 1 ECHR and Art2 and 9 of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and even not after the amendment BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015 (on the grounds that the feeability of past and future salaries may be refused under this amendment solely on the basis of the verifiable de facto deception in the transitional month), is, in any event, justifiable.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

     

    Letzteres war wiederum das vom österreichischen Gesetzgeber wohl intentional einzige zur Durchsetzung einer altersdiskriminierungsfreien Besoldung vorgesehene innerstaatliche Verfahren (vgl. in diesem Zusammenhang allerdings auch das hg. Erkenntnis vom 16. November 2015,Ra 2015/12/0013). Die im vorzitierten Erkenntnis des Bundesverwaltungsgerichtes vertretene Rechtsauffassung, wonach Beamten, die einen Antrag nach § 113 Abs. 10 GehG gestellt hatten, eine Neufestsetzung des Vorrückungsstichtages als Teil des Verfahrens zur rückwirkenden Erlangung einer unionsrechtskonformen Besoldung für die vor Inkrafttreten der Novelle BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015 liegenden Gehaltsperioden (und damit auch für den nach § 169c Abs. 2 GehG für die Überleitung maßgeblichen Überleitungsmonat) aus Gründen des Art. 47 Abs. 2 GRC, des Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK sowie der Art. 2 und 9 der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG des Rates vom 27. November 2000 zur Festlegung eines allgemeinen Rahmens für die Verwirklichung der Gleichbehandlung in Beschäftigung und Beruf auch nach Herausgabe der Novelle BGBl. I Nr. 32/2015 nicht (mit der Begründung, die Gebührlichkeit vergangener und zukünftiger Gehälter richte sich nach dieser Novelle allein nach der unüberprüfbaren faktischen Gestion bei der Gehaltsverrechnung im Überleitungsmonat) verweigert werden darf, ist jedenfalls vertretbar.

  • Relevance of Charter

     

    a) The relevance of the Charter for the present case consists in the simple mentioning of Art47 para 2 CFR next to Art6 para 1 ECHR. By doing this, the right to a fair trial as it is provided in the CFR gets as much attention and significance as the ECHR.

    b) the contribution of the decision described to the overall role of the Charter in the national legal system: The contribution of the decision lies in the simple mentioning of the CFR, which in turn helps manifesting it in the national jurisprudence.