Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH Case C-427/06, [2008] ECR I-7245
Facts
Birgit Bartsch sought a survivor’s pension after her husband died. The employer’s pension scheme excluded a surviving spouse who was more than fifteen years younger than the employee; the age gap in their marriage exceeded that limit. She challenged the rule as age discrimination under Community law. The relevant events occurred before the deadline applicable to Germany for transposing the age-discrimination provisions of Directive 2000/78. The scheme was not implementing that directive or another Community measure. The referring court asked whether the general equality principle nevertheless required review.
Legal Issue
Did the EU prohibition of age discrimination apply to this pension rule where the relevant facts lacked a connection with Community law and preceded the applicable directive deadline?
Held
The Court held that application of the Community prohibition was not mandatory in the circumstances because the treatment had no sufficient link with Community law. Article 13 EC authorised legislative action but did not itself bring every age distinction within Community competence. Nor did the unexpired directive deadline supply the missing connection in this case. The scheme was not a national implementing measure. The Court therefore did not decide that the age-gap rule was substantively justified under every possible legal framework. It addressed the threshold scope of EU law. That distinction limited the apparent reach of Mangold without denying the equality principle where an appropriate EU connection exists.
⭐ Legal Principle
The general EU principle prohibiting age discrimination requires a relevant connection with EU law. A Treaty power to legislate and an unexpired directive deadline do not automatically bring every private age distinction within that scope.
Significance
Bartsch is a necessary companion to Mangold because it makes the scope inquiry explicit. The existence of a general principle does not give EU courts unlimited jurisdiction over private employment arrangements. The decision was tied to the dates and legal connections before it. Later equality law and domestic protections may govern similar pension rules, so lack of EU scope in this case is not universal approval of the rule.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the timing of the pension dispute relevant?
The events occurred before the applicable transposition deadline, and the scheme did not implement the directive. In those circumstances, the directive did not supply the necessary EU-law link. Timing was one part of the scope analysis, rather than a rule that no EU obligation can ever arise before a deadline.
Did Bartsch hold the age-gap rule fair?
The Court did not reach a general substantive approval of the pension condition. It found the necessary Community-law connection absent in the circumstances. A rule outside one EU route may still be reviewable under other applicable legislation, so scope and justification must not be confused.
How should Bartsch qualify a Mangold argument?
The claimant must establish that the situation falls within EU law before invoking the general age-equality principle. Bartsch rejects treating the principle as automatically applicable to every private age distinction. A strong answer compares the legal connection and dates, rather than assuming the two cases announce incompatible universal rules.