Notice for the OJ
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
30 September 2003
in Case C-224/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich,(1) (Equal treatment ( Remuneration of university professors ( Indirect discrimination ( Length-of-service increment ( Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law
for which it is responsible ( Infringements attributable to a national court)
(Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-224/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gerhard Köbler and Republik Österreich, on the interpretation, first, of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and, secondly, the judgments of the Court in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029 and Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
1. The principle that Member States are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which they are responsible is also applicable where the alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties. In order to determine whether the infringement is sufficiently serious when the infringement at issue stems from such a decision, the competent national court, taking into account the specific nature of the judicial function, must determine whether that infringement is manifest. It is for the legal system of each Member State to designate the court competent to determine disputes relating to that reparation.
2. Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the grant, under conditions such as those laid down in Article 50a of the Gehaltsgesetz 1956 (law on salaries of 1956), as amended in 1997, of a special length-of-service increment which, according to the interpretation of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) in its judgment of 24 June 1998, constitutes a loyalty bonus.
3. An infringement of Community law, such as that stemming in the circumstances of the main proceedings from the judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 24 June 1998, does not have the requisite manifest character for liability under Community law to be incurred by a Member State for a decision of one of its courts adjudicating at last instance.
____________1 - OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001