Reports of Cases

2008 I-01757

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) – Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a), 3((1)(c) and (3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) – Meaning of pay – Registered partner excluded from receipt of a survivor's pension

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 141 : paragraphs 41, 42, 44, 46, 56, 60
• Directive 2000/78 : paragraphs 34, 41, 61, 74
• Directive 2000/78 -A01 : paragraphs 1, 4, 33, 62, 65, 66, 72, 73
• Directive 2000/78 -A02 : paragraphs 5, 62, 66, 73
• Directive 2000/78 -A02P2LA : paragraphs 1, 33, 66, 72
• Directive 2000/78 -A02P2LBLI : paragraphs 1, 66
• Directive 2000/78 -A03 : paragraph 6
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LC : paragraphs 1, 33, 40
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P3 : paragraphs 1, 33, 40
• Directive 2000/78 -A18L1 : paragraph 7
• Directive 2000/78 -C13 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/78 -C22 : paragraphs 3, 33, 58, 60
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -262/88 : paragraphs 74, 77
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -109/91 : paragraphs 44, 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -200/91 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/93 : paragraphs 44, 46 - 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/95 : paragraphs 45, 46 - 48, 57
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -50/99 : paragraph 57
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -366/99 : paragraphs 46 - 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/99 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -351/00 : paragraphs 46 - 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -4/02 : paragraphs 46 - 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/04 : paragraph 77
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -372/04 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -444/05 : paragraph 59

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A01
• Interprets : Directive 2000/78 -A02

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 119 : point 106
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 13 : point 7
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 13 -P1 : points 5, 85
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 13 -P2 : point 6
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 141 : points 54, 58, 72, 88, 89, 95, 106
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 141 -P2 : point 55
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 234 : point 1
  
• EU Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 6 : point 78
  
• Regulation 1408/71 : point 41
  
• Regulation 1408/71 -A01LT : point 42
  
• Regulation 1408/71 -A04P1 : point 44
  
• Regulation 1408/71 -C3 : point 45
  
• Regulation 1408/71 -C4 : point 45
  
• Directive 2000/43 : point 83
  
• Directive 2000/78 : points 1, 7, 32, 36, 42, 53, 81, 82, 103, 111
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A01 : points 8, 33, 54
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A02 : points 33, 96, 102
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A02P1 : point 9
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A02P2 : point 9
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03 : points 10, 37
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1 : points 33, 74, 77
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LA : point 37
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LB : point 37
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LC : points 37, 72
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P1LD : point 37
  
• Directive 2000/78 -A03P3 : points 37, 40, 72
  
• Directive 2000/78 -C13 : points 7, 54
  
• Directive 2000/78 -C22 : points 7, 39, 73
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000) -A21 : point 78
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -28/67 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -80/70 : points 57, 59, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/81 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -12/81 : points 56, 57, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -152/84 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -170/84 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -71/85 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -192/85 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -31/87 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -103/88 : points 30, 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -171/88 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -177/88 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -179/88 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -215/88 : point 76
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -262/88 : points 23, 56, 57, 60, 62, 106
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -33/89 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -188/89 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/90 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/90 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -109/91 : points 61, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -152/91 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -200/91 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/92 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/93 : points 61, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/93 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/93 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -128/93 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/93 : points 56, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -13/94 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -246/94 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/95 : points 61, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -389/95 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -66/96 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -234/96 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -249/96 : point 88
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -394/96 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -411/96 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/97 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -249/97 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/97 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -333/97 : points 56, 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -343/98 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -457/98 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -50/99 : points 61, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -122/99 : point 103
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -122/99 : points 94, 98
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -157/99 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -366/99 : points 61, 62, 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/99 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -381/99 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/00 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -109/00 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -351/00 : points 61, 62, 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -117/01 : point 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -397/01 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -4/02 : points 57, 61, 62, 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/02 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/02 : points 56, 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -92/02 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/02 : points 56, 57, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -157/02 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -220/02 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -284/02 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -110/03 : point 76
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -191/03 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/03 : point 108
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -356/03 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -53/04 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -144/04 : point 78
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -180/04 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -207/04 : points 56, 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/04 : point 108
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -294/04 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -372/04 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -423/04 : points 77, 108
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -43/05 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -444/05 : point 77
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -267/06 : point 86
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 20/06/2006

Date of the Opinion

• 06/09/2007

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

01/04/2008

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 224 from 16.09.2006, p.20

Judgment: OJ C 128 from 24.05.2008, p.6

Name of the parties

Maruko

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Pärli, Kurt: Anspruch auf Hinterbliebenenrente für Partner aus gleichgeschlechtlicher Partnerschaft, European Law Reporter 2007 p.455-458
2. Lundblad, Pernilla: Homosexuella har rätt till efterlevandepension, Lag & Avtal 2008 nº 4 p.18
3. Bruns, Manfred: Der EuGH beendet die deutsche Sonderrechtsprechung zur Benachteiligung verpartnerter Beschäftigter, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2008 p.257
4. Lhernould, Jean-Philippe: Les droits sociaux des couples homosexuels, Droit social 2008 p.712-716
5. Broussy, Emmanuelle ; Donnat, Francis ; Lambert, Christian: Chronique de jurisprudence communautaire. Travail - Discrimination fondée sur l'orientation sexuelle, L'actualité juridique ; droit administratif 2008 p.872-873
6. Lembke, Mark: Sind an die Ehe geknüpfte Leistungen des Arbeitgebers auch an Lebenspartner zu gewähren?, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2008 p.1631-1634
7. Driguez, Laetitia: Discrimination en raison de l'orientation sexuelle, Europe 2008 Mai Comm. nº 150 p.13
8. Bruns, Manfred: Die Maruko-Entscheidung im Spannungsfeld zwischen europäischer und nationaler Auslegung, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2008 p.1929-1931
9. Potz, Andrea: Gleichstellung homosexueller Paare bei der Hinterbliebenenversorgung?, Österreichisches Recht der Wirtschaft 2008 p.405-408
10. Petroglou, P.: Epitheorisis Dikaiou Koinonikis Asfaliseos 2008 p.220-226
11. Mok, M.R.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2008 nº 350
12. Weisse-Marchal, Claudie: Le droit à une pension de veuf du partenaire de vie du même sexe, Recueil Le Dalloz 2008 p.1873-1876
13. Cheirdaris, V.: To DEK anagnorizei dikaioma syntaxis chireias se syntrofo idiou fylou katachorismenis symviosis, Nomiko Vima 2008 p.781-782
14. Mallios, E.: Efimerida Dioikitikou Dikaiou 2008 p.252-253
15. Brinktrine, Ralf: Juristenzeitung 2008 p.790-792
16. Bieback, Karl-Jürgen: Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht 2008 p.296-300
17. Stuefer, Alexia: Was ist faul im Staate Österreich?, Juridikum : Zeitschrift im Rechtsstaat 2008 p.57
18. Devers, Alain ; Viangalli, François: Droit à pension de veuf pour un partenaire homosexuel, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2008 II 10143 p.43-45
19. Schlachter, Monika: Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil vom 1.4.2008, Rs. C-267/06 - Tadao Maruko, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 2008 p.251-254
20. Bodnar, Adam: Zakaz dyskryminacji osób homoseksualnych pozostających w związkach partnerskich - glosa do wyroku ETS z 1.04.2008 r. w sprawie C-267/06 Tadao Maruko przeciwko Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2008 Vol. 10 p.43-48
21. Cavallini, Joël: Couple de même sexe et accès aux pensions de veuvage ou de survie, La semaine juridique - Social 2008 nº 1416 p.39-41
22. Toggenburg, Gabriel N.: "LGBT" go Luxembourg: on the stance of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Rights before the European Court of Justice, European Law Reporter 2008 p.174-185
23. Stüber, Stephan: Was folgt aus "Maruko"?, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2008 p.750-752
24. Chachalis, C.: Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 2008 p.366-368
25. Rofes i Pujol, Maria Isabel: Crónica de la Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas, Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 2008 nº 39 p.217-230
26. Bruns, Manfred: Lebenspartner und die betriebliche Altersversorgung, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2009 p.596-598
27. Ronchetti, Laura: I due volti dell'Europa: il principio di non discriminazione tra libertà e uguaglianza. A proposito delle sentenze Maruko e Rüffert della Corte di giustizia, Giurisprudenza italiana 2009 p.564-570
28. Vizioli, Mariangela: La Corte di giustizia si pronuncia sulla pensione di reversibilità nelle unioni di fatto tra partner dello stesso sesso, Giurisprudenza italiana 2009 p.1904-1906
29. Franzen, Martin: Gleichbehandlung eingetragener Lebenspartner mit Ehepaaren bei der Hinterbliebenenversorgung, Europäische Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 2009 p.395-404
30. Anthimos, A.: Armenopoulos 2010 p.452-453
31. Picarella, Giulia: Le discriminazioni fondate sull'orientamento sessuale nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia: dal caso P. alla sentenza Romer, Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro 2011 II p.1325-1359
32. Pisano, Angela: Divieto di discriminazione sula base dell'orientamento sessuale: il caso Maruko, Il principio di non discriminazione nel diritto dell'Unione europea (Editoriale Scientifica) 2011 p.199-213

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München - Germany

Subject-matter

• Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
  
• Social policy
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Satzung der Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, Paragraphen 27, 32 und 34 Tarifordnung für die deutschen Theater

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Klučka

Advocate General

Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer

Language(s) of the Case

• German
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• Spanish