(a)

Does pursuing the interest in recruiting officials who will remain in active service for as long as possible by having a maximum recruitment age constitute a legitimate aim for a public employer to pursue in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

(b)

Is the implementation of such an aim inappropriate as soon as it results in officials serving for longer than the 5 years necessary to obtain the minimum pension guaranteed by law in the case of early retirement?

(c)

Is the implementation of such an aim inappropriate only once it results in officials serving for longer than the time necessary — at present 19.51 years — to earn in full the minimum pension guaranteed by law in the case of early retirement?

(a)

Is it a legitimate aim within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC to keep the total number of officials to be recruited to a minimum by means of a maximum recruitment age which is as low as possible, in order to keep to a minimum the amount of individual benefits such as provision for accidents or sickness (assistance which also covers family members)?

(b)

In that respect, what significance can be accorded to the fact that, as officials grow older, provisions for accidents or sickness benefits (including for family members) are higher than for younger officials, so that the recruitment of older officials could increase the overall cost of such provision?

(c)

In that respect, must firm forecasts or statistics be available, or are general assumptions based on probability sufficient?

(a)

If a public employer wants to apply a particular maximum recruitment age in order to ensure a ‘balanced age structure in the particular career’, is that aim legitimate within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

(b)

If so, what requirements must the criteria for creating such an age structure satisfy in order to meet the conditions for a ground of justification (appropriateness and necessity, need)?

(a)

Is the need for a minimum period of service justified solely as a form of compensation for having acquired, exclusively at the employer's expense, a qualification with the employer (professional qualification for a middle-ranking post in the fire service), in the interests of ensuring, with regard to such a qualification, an adequate subsequent period of service with that employer, so that the costs of training the officer are thus gradually worked off?

(b)

What is the maximum permissible length of the service period phase that follows the period of training? Can it exceed five years? If so, under what conditions?

(c)

Irrespective of question 7(a), can the appropriateness or necessity of a minimum period of service be justified by the consideration that, in the case of officials whose pensions are financed solely by the employer, the estimated period of active service from recruitment to likely retirement date must suffice to earn in full the minimum pension guaranteed by law by serving for a period which is at present 19.51 years?

(d)

Conversely, is a refusal to recruit someone justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC only if the person would be recruited at an age which, given his likely retirement date, would result in the minimum pension being payable although it had not yet been fully earned?

(a)

Should the date of retirement for the purposes of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC be determined on the basis of the age limit fixed by law for retirement and subsequent receipt of a pension, or must it be based on statistical calculations of the average retirement age of a particular group of officials or employees?

(b)

Where applicable, to what extent should it be taken into consideration that in individual cases the normal date of an official's retirement can be postponed by up to two years? Does that circumstance lead to a corresponding increase in the maximum recruitment age?