CJEU Case C-757/24 / Judgment

SG v Gemeinde Wien
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Ninth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
05/03/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:159

Χάρτης των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

  • CJEU Case C-757/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case;

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Regional legislation on the remuneration of contract staff members – Periods of employment completed before the age of 18 taken into account – New remuneration system replacing previous legislation found to be discriminatory

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:

    Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which a contract staff member’s grade is fixed on the basis of his or her seniority in the remuneration scale, where that seniority is determined, in order to put an end to existing discrimination on grounds of age, by taking into account at half their value certain accreditable periods prior to the recruitment of that staff member completed before his or her 18th birthday, subject to a ceiling of three years, provided that that ceiling applies irrespective of the age at which the experience was acquired.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    15. In the course of the main proceedings, the Court of Justice held, in essence, in its judgment of 20 April 2023, Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich and Finanzamt Österreich (C‑650/21, EU:C:2023:300), that Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the grading of a civil servant is fixed on the basis of his or her seniority in the remuneration scale of a previous remuneration system found to be discriminatory, then corrected by means of a ‘comparison reference date’, for the purposes of which all ‘other periods’ which are accreditable, including those completed before the age of 18, are to be taken into account at half their value but subject to a ceiling of seven years and only in so far as they exceed a period of four years.

    ...

    18. In the light of the amendments introduced by the 2023 legislation and the submissions made by the applicant, the referring court asks whether Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as also precluding the 2023 legislation, pursuant to which periods of service completed before the age of 18 are only taken into account at half their value when calculating seniority.

    19. In those circumstances, the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Labour and Social Court, Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

    ‘Is European Union law, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78 [read] in conjunction with Article 21 of [the Charter], to be interpreted as precluding a national provision (in particular [point 3 of] Paragraph 49v(3) of the [BO 1994, in the version published in LGBl. No 38/2023]) which, for the purpose of eliminating existing discrimination on grounds of age [see, as regards the previous identical provision in federal law, judgment of 8 May 2019, Leitner, C‑396/17, EU:C:2019:375], [introduces a system in which periods of previous service completed before the age of 18 are taken into account but only at half their value when accrediting previous periods of service and compensating for age discrimination, even though the complete neutralisation of periods of service before the age of 18 has been removed by means of a flat-rate deduction]?’

    ...

    24. By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which a contract staff member’s grade is fixed on the basis of his or her seniority in the remuneration scale, where that seniority is determined, in order to put an end to existing discrimination on grounds of age, by taking into account at half their value and subject to a ceiling of three years certain accreditable periods prior to the recruitment of that staff member completed before his or her 18th birthday.

    ...

    29.  In its judgments of 8 May 2019, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (C‑24/17, EU:C:2019:373), and of 8 May 2019, Leitner (C‑396/17, EU:C:2019:375), the Court held, inter alia, in essence, that Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, preclude national legislation that, for the purposes of putting an end to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transfer of active contractual public servants to a new system of remuneration in the context of which the initial grading of those contractual public servants is determined according to their last remuneration paid under the previous system.

    ...

    31. In that regard, as is apparent from paragraph 15 above, the Court held, in essence, in its judgment of 20 April 2023, Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich and Finanzamt Österreich (C‑650/21, EU:C:2023:300), that Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the grading of a civil servant is fixed on the basis of his or her seniority in the remuneration scale of a previous remuneration system found to be discriminatory, then corrected by means of a ‘comparison reference date’, for the purposes of which all ‘other periods’ which are accreditable, including those completed before the age of 18, are to be taken into account at half their value, subject to a ceiling of seven years and only in so far as they exceed a period of four years.

    ...

    33. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the prohibition of discrimination based on, inter alia, age is incorporated in Article 21 of the Charter and that that prohibition was given specific expression by Directive 2000/78 in the field of employment and occupation (judgment of 20 April 2023, Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich and Finanzamt Österreich, C‑650/21, EU:C:2023:300, paragraph 45).

    ...

    51. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which a contract staff member’s grade is fixed on the basis of his or her seniority in the remuneration scale, where that seniority is determined, in order to put an end to existing discrimination on grounds of age, by taking into account at half their value certain accreditable periods prior to the recruitment of that staff member completed before his or her 18th birthday, subject to a ceiling of three years, provided that that ceiling applies irrespective of the age at which the experience was acquired.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)