EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-349/23, Zetschek: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2023 — HB v Federal Republic of Germany

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0349

62023CN0349

June 6, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/7

(Case C-349/23, Zetschek (*) )

(2023/C 338/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HB

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1.Does it constitute direct discrimination on grounds of age within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (*) when, under Paragraph 48(2) of the German Law on Judges (Deutsches Richtergesetz, ‘the DRiG’), federal judges cannot postpone the start of their retirement, even though federal civil servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so?

2.In the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, do elements derived from the general context of the measure at issue also include aspects that are not mentioned at all in the legislative material or in the course of the entire parliamentary legislative process, but are presented only during the judicial proceedings?

3.How are the terms ‘objectively’ and ‘reasonably’ in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted and what is their point of reference? Does the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Directive require a twofold examination of reasonableness?

4.Is the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as precluding, from the point of view of coherence, national legislation which precludes federal judges from postponing their retirement whereas federal public servants and, for example, judges in the service of Land Baden-Württemberg are allowed to do so?

(*) The present case is designated by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the actual name of a party to the proceedings.

(*) Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia