ECJ 6 December 2012, joined cases C-124, 125 and 143/11 (Dittrich, Klinke and Müller - v - Bundes-republik Deutschland), Sexual orientation discrimination

Facts

Dittrich,  Klinke  and  Müller  (the ‘applicants’)  were  public  servants  in the employment of the German federal government. They had same-sex partners (Eingetragene Lebenspartner) as provided in German law, also  known  as  ‘civil  partners’.  In  the  course  of  2004-2006,  each  of them applied with their employer for assistance (in the form of partial - 50 to 80% - reimbursement) for medical expenses incurred by their partners.  Had  those  partners  been  their  spouses,  they  would  have been eligible for the assistance pursuant to the Law on federal public servants (Bundesbeamtengesetz, the ‘BBG’). However, as at that time the BBG limited such assistance to public servants, their spouse and their dependent children, the applicant’s requests were denied. [Note that in 2011 the BBG was amended with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009. Public servants are now eligible for partial reimbursement of their civil partner’s medical expenses.]

National proceedings

The applicants brought proceedings. In the case of Dittrich and Klinke, the  Verwaltungsgericht,  applying  Directive  2000/78  (which  prohibits discrimination  on  the  ground  of,  inter  alia,  sexual  orientation), upheld  their  claims  and  the  government  appealed  to  the  Federal Administrative  Court  (Bundesverwaltungsgericht)  on  a  point  of  law. In  contrast,  Müller’s  action  was  unsuccessful  and  he  appealed  to the  Bundesverwaltungsgericht.  That  court  acknowledged  that,  if the assistance at issue is to be considered to be an element of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU, it comes within the scope of Directive  2000/78,  in  which  case  the  applicants  would  be  entitled  to the  assistance  claimed.  However,  the  court  was  in  doubt  whether assistance for medical expenses as provided by the BBG qualifies as ‘pay’ or whether it is a social benefit within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2000/78, which provides that “This Directive does not apply to payments of any kind made by State schemes or similar, including State social security or social protection schemes”.

ECJ’s findings

1.  The scope of Directive 2000/78 must be understood as excluding social  security  or  social  protection  schemes,  the  benefits  of which are not equivalent to ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU (§ 31).
2.  The concept of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted broadly. It covers, in particular, any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future (first element), provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his or her employment (second element), from his or her employer (third element), and irrespective of whether it is received under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis (§ 35).
3.  Re  the  first  element:  A  financial  benefit  such  as  that  at  issue comes - from a material point of view - within the said concept of ‘pay’ (§ 36).
4.  Re  the  second  element:  The  next  question  is  whether  the assistance  at  issue  is  granted  to  the  public  servant  by  reason of  the  latter’s  employment.  The  criteria  previously  identified by  the  ECJ  to  assess  the  classification  of  a  retirement  benefit as  pay  (benefit  dependent  on  period  of  service  completed  and related to last salary) are irrelevant with regard to the benefit at issue, which seeks, not to provide deferred income after the cessation  of  the  employment  relationship,  but  to  cover  health expenses  during  that  relationship  or  after  it.  What  is  relevant is that the assistance at issue is granted exclusively to federal public servants pursuant to their employment relationship with the State (§ 38-39).
5.  Re the third element: The assistance at issue is financed by the State  administration  acting  as  an  employer  in  respect  of  staff expenditure and not by the social security budget (§ 42).

Ruling

Article  3(1)(c)  and  3(3)  of  Directive  2000/78  must  be  interpreted  as meaning  that  assistance  granted  to  public  servants  in  the  event  of illness such as that at issue falls within the scope of that directive if it is the responsibility of the State, as a public employer, to finance it, this being a matter for the national court to determine.