CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 35698/23 Franz WACK against Germany lodged on 19 September 2023 communicated on 4 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings in which the labour courts abstained from referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. The applicant’s employment contract was terminated for operational reasons. As a result, he received a lump sum payment provided for in a social plan. The amount to be paid depended on the respective employee’s age: Younger employees received higher lump sum payments than employees who had – such as the applicant – reached the age of 61 years. Before the Labour Court and the Labour Court of Appeal the applicant unsuccessfully claimed a higher lump sum payment. In his complaint against the Labour Court of Appeal’s denial to grant leave to appeal on points of law the applicant requested the Federal Labour Court to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling the question whether age-related lump sum payments amounted to discrimination contrary to European Union law. On 8 March 2023 the Federal Labour Court rejected the complaint as inadmissible for not meeting the legal requirements of such complaints. It noted that a further reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the requirements of leave-to-appeal proceedings, and that neither the German Basic Law nor the Convention required the court to give further reasons. On 19 May 2023 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication, without giving reasons. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling and that the Federal Labour Court did not provide reasons for its omission to refer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the refusal of the domestic courts to grant the applicant’s request for a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) render the proceedings unfair, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium , nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, §§ 58-59, 20   September 2011; and Sanofi Pasteur v. France , no. 25137/16, §§ 68-71, 13   February 2020)?   In particular, in light of the decision taken by the Federal Labour Court, did Article 6 § 1 of the Convention oblige the court to give reasons for not referring the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling ( Sanofi Pasteur , cited above, §§ 71-81; Georgiou v. Greece , no. 57378/18, §§ 23-26, 14 March 2023; and Astikos Kai Paratheristikos Oikodomikos Synetairismos Axiomatikon and Karagiorgos v. Greece (dec.), nos. 29382/16 and 489/17, §   47, 9 May 2017)?   If so, did the decision taken by the Federal Labour Court and/or the domestic proceedings as a whole provide the applicant with an answer as to why the domestic courts had not referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling?