Key facts of the case:

References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Articles 2 and 6 – Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age – Remuneration of civil servants – Discriminatory system of remuneration – Retrospective payment calculated on the basis of a prior discriminatory classification – New form of discrimination – Article 9 – Compensation as a result of discriminatory legislation – Time limit for making an application for compensation – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Outcome of the case:

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

1. Articles 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that it responds to the need to protect acquired rights in a context characterised in particular by the high number of civil servants and judges affected as well as by a lack of a valid point of reference, and does not result in a difference in treatment on grounds of age being perpetuated, they do not preclude a measure which, in order to guarantee appropriate remuneration, grants to civil servants and judges retrospective payment calculated as a percentage of the basic pay that they previously received in accordance with, inter alia, a step determining basic pay which was allocated, for each grade, at the time of recruitment, on the basis of their age.
2. The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting the starting point of a two-month time period for making an application for compensation for damage resulting from a measure constituting discrimination on grounds of age as the date of delivery of a judgment by the Court establishing that a similar measure was discriminatory, where there is a risk that the persons concerned will not be in a position, within that period, to determine whether they have been discriminated against, or, if so, to what extent. That may be the case in particular where there is disagreement in that Member State as to whether it is possible to transpose the guidance provided by that judgment to the measure in question.