¹ EC Directive 2004/113 of 21 December 2004, 2004 O.J. (L373) 37.Google Scholar

² Joined Opinions of Advocate General Van Gerven in Cases C-109/91, C-110/91, C-152/91 and C-200/91, Ten Oever and Others, 1993 E.C.R. I-4879, at paras. 27–39 and 66.Google Scholar

³ Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v. Conseil des ministres, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 907–909 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴ See Thiery, Yves, The opinion of A.G. Kokott on gender discrimination in insurance: effects for the insurance market, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR) 28, 29 (2011); Judith Kerschbaumer, Schluss mit dem kleinen Unterschied – EuGH verlangt Unisex-Tarife (Stop the minor differences - ECJ requires unisex rates), Arbeitsrecht im Betrieb (AiB) 363 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵ See e.g. Tobler, Christa, Case note on Case C-236/09: Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v. Conseil des ministres, 48 Common Market Law Review (CML Rev.) 2041, 2057 (2011); Dagmar Felix & Roya Sangi, Unisex-Tarife in der Privatversicherung – Eine auch kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der Forderung des EuGH nach geschlechtsneutraler Tarifierung (Unisex rates in the private insurance-A critical examination of the claim of the ECJ in gender-neutral pricing), Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozial- und Arbeitsrecht (ZESAR) 257, 262–263 (2011) – no retroactive effect, but adoption of unisex tariffs in all contracts that have been entered into before 22 December 2012; Ulrich-Arthur Birk, Pflicht zu Unisextarifen in der betrieblichen Altersversorgung? (Obligation to [have] unisex rates in occupational pension schemes?), Der Betrieb (DB) 819 (2011); contra Reinhold Höfer, Zur Umsetzung der “Unisex-Entscheidung” des EuGH (To implement the “unisex” decision of the ECJ), Der Betrieb (DB) 1334, 1335 (2011) – no retroactive effect and no adjustment of existing contracts; Christian Rolfs & Nathalie Binz, EuGH erzwingt ab Ende 2012 Unisex-Tarife für alle neuen Versicherungsverträge (Court gives until the end of 2012 for the enforcement of unisex rates for all new insurance contracts), Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 714, 716, 718 (2011); Norbert Reich, Non-Discrimination and the many Faces of Private Law in the Union – Some Thoughts After the “Test-Achts” Judgment, The European Journal of Risk Regulation (EJRR) 283, 287 (2011); Kai Purnhagen, Zum Verbot der Risikodifferenzierung aufgrund des Geschlechts – Eine Lehre des EuGH zur Konstitutionalisierung des Privatrechts am Beispiel des Versicherungsvertragsrechts? (Kai Purnhagen: The prohibition on risk differentiation based on sex – Is this a doctrine of the ECJ on the constitutionalisation of private law at the instance of insurance contract law?), Europarecht (EuR) 690, 703–704 (2011); Christian Armbrüster, EuGH: Geschlechtsspezifische Unterscheidung bei Versicherungstarifen verletzt EU-Grundrechte-Charta (Justice Gender discrimination in insurance rates hurt the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), 314339 Kommentierte BGH-Rechtsprechung Lindenmaier-Möhring (LMK, 2011); Björn Kahler, Unisextarife im Versicherungswesen – Grundrechtsprüfung durch den EuGH (Unisex rates in the insurance industry-Of fundamental rights by the ECJ), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 894, 896 (2011); Dirk Looschelders, Aktuelle Auswirkungen des EU-Rechts auf das deutsche Versicherungsvertragsrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der geschlechtsspezifischen Tarifierung (Current impact of EU law on the German insurance contract law with particular emphasis on gender), Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 421, 428 (2011); contra Jan D. Lüttringhaus, Europaweit Unisex-Tarife für Versicherungen! (Europe-wide unisex rates for insurance), Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 296, 299 (2011) – no retroactive effect, but possibly adjustment of existing contracts.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-236/09, Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v. Conseil des ministres [hereinafter “Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al.”], at para. 81, available at: www.curia.eu (last accessed: 23 December 2011); Financial Times Deutschland, Kein Unisex für Alte – Gleiche Versicherungstarife für Männer und Frauen ab Ende 2012 / Pflicht gilt für Neukunden, nichtfür Altverträge (No unisex rates for older persons - equal insurance conditions for men and women from the end of 2012 onwards/ Obligation concerns new customers, no application for already existing contracts), FTD, Dec. 21, 2011.Google Scholar

⁷ See e.g. Thüsing, Gregor & Hoff, Konrad von, Private Versicherungen und das Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (Private Insurance and the General Equal Treatment Act), VersR 1 (2007).Google Scholar

⁸ A period life table is based on the mortality experience of a population during a relatively short period of time (e.g. for one calendar year), and enables one to calculate the mortality of an average person at a given age within this period. However, the resulting life expectancy does not represent the real life expectancy of a single person. In contrast, a generation life table or cohort life table takes into account that life expectancy depends on age, as well as the year of birth. Thus, trends in the development of mortality can be considered, too. Average life expectancy calculated on the basis of generation life tables can be used as an adequate estimate for the real life expectancy of a given birth cohort. Depending on the type of life table and the year it was calculated, the difference in remaining life expectancy of a 65-year-old man can vary from 12.4 up to 24.6 years. Furthermore, there are differences with regard to the extrapolation of data to estimate the future trend of life expectancy. They depend on the way that the insurance contract is financed (tax, capital funding, pay-as-you-go, possibility of contribution increase) and what type of risk is insured (e.g. age, health or care). Another important aspect is the extent of conservative risk calculation an insurer is allowed to apply to his favor.Google Scholar

⁹ Deutsche Aktuarvereinigung, Sterbetafeln – Handwerkzeug der Aktuare: Verlängerung der Lebenserwartung – wie gehen Aktuare damit um? (Mortality Tables, Hand Tools of Actuaries: Extension of Life Expectancy, As Actuaries Go With It, 2007), available at: http://aktuar.de/custom/download/Folien-DAV-Werkstattgespraech-Sterbetafeln.pdf (last accessed: 23 December 2011); see also Kerschbaumer, supra note 4 at 363, 364; Höfer, supra note 5, at 1334, 1335; Birk, supra note 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Recital 19 of Directive 2004/113/EC; see also, supra note 4.Google Scholar

¹¹ The German legislature, for instance, had exempted all kinds of private insurance contracts from the prohibition to use sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefit. See the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (General Equal Treatment Act), sect. 20(2) and 19(1)(2), Aug. 18, 2006, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl) I, 1897 1910. However, the exception proves the rule as so-called private Riester pension contracts as well as private long-term care insurances have to provide for unisex premiums and grant corresponding benefits: see Gesetz über die Zertifizierung von Altersvorsorge- und Basisrentenverträgen (Act on the Certification of Basic Pension and Annuity Contracts), sect. 23(1), Jun. 26, 2001, BGBI 1 S, 1768), taken in conjunction with Sozialgesetzbuch XI (German Social Code), sect. 110(2)(2) lit. (d), 110(3)(3), May 26, 1994, BGBI 1 S, 1014.Google Scholar

¹² See supra note 4.Google Scholar

¹³ Moniteur belge 66175 (31 December 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See joint Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, Volker and Markus Schecke and Eifert, EuZW 939, para. 46 (2010); Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-5769,at paras. 4, 38 (“Family Reunification”).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at para. 17 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at para. 31.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a skeptical review, see Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 697–698, with regard to the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), which is already being cited by several Advocates General.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at para. 21; Tobler, supra note 5, at 2041, 2051.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at paras. 31–33.Google Scholar

²⁰ Recital 19, supra note 10.Google Scholar

²¹ Tobler, supra note 5, at 2041, 2047 et seq.; Felix & Sangi, supra note 5, at 257, 261; Birk, supra note 5 at 819; Kerschbaumer, supra note 4, at 363, 365; Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5 at 714, 716, 718; Reich, supra note 5, at 283, 287 et seq.; contra Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 425 et seq.; Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 693 et seq.; Lüttringhaus, supra note 5, at 296 et seq.; Höfer, supra note 5, at 1334; Armbrüster, supra note 5; Kahler, supra note 5, at 894 et seq. Google Scholar

²² Cf. Case 66/80, ICC, 1981 E.C.R. 1191, at paras. 13–15.Google Scholar

²³ Tobler, supra note 5, at 2041, 2048–2049; Purnhagen, supra note 5 at 690, 693–695. In contrast, the foundations of the process of constitutionalization of German Private Law were already laid in the 1950s, cf. BVerfG NJW 257–258 (1958); Rainer Wahl, Herausforderungen und Antworten: Das Öffentliche Recht der letzten fünfJahrzehnte (Challenges and Responses: Public Law of the Last Five Decades) 32–35 (2006). It should be noted that the principle of equality is by no means a foreign concept in private law, cf. Michael Grünberger, Personale Gleichheit. Der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung im Zivilrecht (Personal Equality: The Principle of Equal Treatment in Civil Law, 2011), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1895366 (last accessed: 23 December 2011); Felipe Temming, Altersdiskriminierung im Arbeitsleben (Age Discrimination in Working Life) 88 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Pärli, Kurt, Verbot geschlechtsspezifischer Prämien bei Versicherungsverträgen (Prohibiting gender-based premiums for insurance contracts), Haftung und Versicherung (HAVE/REAS) 153, 157–158 (2011); Tobler, supra note 5, at 2041, 2053, 2060 (2011); Press Release, Preliminary Agreement on Gender Equality Directive. European insurers welcome opportunity to continue using gender in pricing (Comité Européen des Assurances), Oct. 4, 2004, available at: www.cea.eu/uploads/Modules/Newsroom/communique183.pdf (last accessed: 23 December 2011); Elisabeth Schrödter (MoEP), Der Europäische Gerichtshof fordert Unisextarife, 1 Europa Sozial 2 (2011), available at: www.elisabeth-schroedter.de/media/europa-sozial/EuSoz11-1web.pdf (last accessed: 23 December 2011); Ines Kopischke, Staat und private Altersvorsorge. Entscheidungsprozesse und Debatten zu “Unisex-Tarifen” in der Politik der Europäischen Union und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (State and private pensions. Decision-making processes and debates on “unisex rates” in the policy of the European Union and the Federal Republic of Germany), 18 Arbeitspapier 46–60 (2010), available at: www.uni-bielefeld.de/(en)/soz/personen/Leisering/pdf/Arbeitspapier-18neu-IK-Staat-und-private-Altersvorsorge.pdf (last accessed 23 December 2011); Daniela Kuhr, Männer. Frauen. Menschen (Men. Women. People.), v. 2.3 Süddeutsche Zeitung (2011), available at: www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/2.220/versicherungs-urteil-des-eugh-maenner-frauen-menschen-1.1066618 (last accessed: 23 December 2011).Google Scholar

²⁵ Joined Opinions of Advocate General Van Gerven, supra note 2, at paras. 34–39, at para. 28.Google Scholar

²⁶ Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services, COM (2003) 657 final of 5 November 2003, at 6–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6; contra Hans-Peter Schwintowski, Geschlechtsdiskriminierung durch risikobasierte Versicherungstarife? (Gender discrimination through risk-based insurance rates?), VersR 164 (2011); Ulrich Karpenstein, Harmonie durch die Hintertür? Geschlechtsspezifisch kalkulierte Versicherungstarife und das Diskriminierungsverbot (Harmony through the back door? Gender-specific rates calculated insurance and non-discrimination), EuZW 885 (2010); Holger M. Sagmeister, Geschlechtsspezifische Versicherungstarife tatsächlich europarechtswidrig? (Gender-specific insurance rates actually contrary to European law?), VersR 187 (2011).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at paras. 70, 72. Nowhere in her opinion does Kokott, AG, conclude sex-specific insurance premiums could be justified if they are necessitated because of clear biological differences between men and women (cf. paras. 52, 61–69 of her opinion). If at all, she has generally suggested direct discriminations on the grounds of sex could be justified under certain conditions, cf. para. 60: only permissible if it can be established with certainty that there are relevant differences between men and women which necessitate such discrimination.”Google Scholar

²⁹ See Temming, supra note 23, at 473 et seq. Google Scholar

³⁰ Very clear in e.g. Case C-356/09, Christine Kleist, NZA 1401, 1403, at paras. 41–43 (2010).Google Scholar

³¹ Joined Opinions of Advocate General Van Gerven, supra note 2, at paras. 34–39; Case C-152/91, David Neath v. Hugh Steeper Ltd., 1993 E.C.R. I-6935, at para. 31; Case C-200/91, Coloroll Pension Trustees Limited v. Russel and Others, 1994 E.C.R. I-4389, at para. 80; see also Marita Körner, Unisex-Tarife und Entgeltgleichheitsgrundsatz bei der Riester-Eichel-Rente (Unisex rates and equal pay principle in the Riester-Eichel pension scheme), Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA) 760, 762 et seq. (2004); Felipe Temming, Unisex-Tarife auf dem verfassungsrechtlichen und europarechtlichen Prüfstand (Unisex Rates on the constitutional and European law test), ZESAR 72, 76 et seq. (2005).Google Scholar

³² Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at para. 69.Google Scholar

³³ Contra Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 427, 428. It is submitted that the ECJ's reasoning also means that the financial source with which the insured person pays its premiums is totally irrelevant.Google Scholar

³⁴ Felix & Sang, supra, note 5, at 257, 258–259; contra Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 425– but see also Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-5769, at paras. 71, 76 (“Family reunification”).Google Scholar

³⁵ Case 43/75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [hereinafter “Defrenne II”], 1976 E.C.R. 455, at para. 12; Case 149/77, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena [hereinafter “Defrenne III”], 1978 E.C.R. 1365, at paras. 26–27.Google Scholar

³⁶ See e.g. Kahler, supra note 5, at 894.Google Scholar

³⁷ Introduced in Case 88/08, David Hütter v. Technische Universität Graz, 2009 E.C.R. I-5325, at paras. 46–47; Case C-341/08, Domnica Petersen v. Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe and Others, NJW 587–592 (2010), at paras. 53 et seq. These decisions have been inconsistently applied in Case C-45/09, Gisela Rosenbladt v. Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsgesellschaft mbH [hereinafter “Gisela Rosenbladt”], NZA 1167–1171 (2010), with an affirmative case note by Jobst-Hubertus Bauer & Martin Diller, EuGH – Rosenbladt – rosiges oder dorniges Blatt für Altersgrenzen? (ECJ - Rosenbladt - Rosy or thorny leaf for age limits?), DB 2727 (2010).Google Scholar

³⁸ Examples given by Kahler, supra note 5, at 894, 897, and also in notes 43 and 44.Google Scholar

³⁹ Id. – However it is not convincing to describe the principle of coherence as a form of reduced scrutiny by means of a fundamental right; see also Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 696.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ German: Gebot der Folgerichtigkeit Google Scholar

⁴¹ See generally, Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (The German Basic Law), available at: www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html (last accessed: 23 December 2011).Google Scholar

⁴² Contra Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 696–697 (2011), who distinguishes between secondary EU law and national legislation of Member States. However, this aspect is immaterial.Google Scholar

⁴³ Osterloh, Lerke, Article 3 in Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (Commentary on the Constitution, Michael Sachs ed., 6^th ed., 2011) margin numbers 98–103; Paul Kirchhof, VII Handbuch des Staatsrechts (Handbook on State Law) 118 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof ed., 3rd ed., 2007), margin numbers 176–181; Franz-Joseph Peine, Systemgerechtigkeit (Justice System, 1985); Christoph Degenhart, Systemgerechtigkeit und Selbstbindung des Gesetzgebers als Verfassungspostulat (The Justice System and the Self- Binding of the Legislature as a Constitutional Postulate, 1976).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Peine, supra note 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ E.g. BVerfG NJW 48, 49 ff. (2009); BVerfG NVwZ 568, 571 (2005); BVerfG Aktuelles Steuerrecht (AktStR) 476, 477 (2000); BVerfG NJW 1815, 1816 (1992); BVerfG NJW 1815, 1816 (1992).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Peine, supra note 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ E.g. BVerfG NJW 1815, 1816 (1992); BVerfG NZA 161, 168 (1990); BVerfG NJW 2231, 2233 (1988).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See for example, 84 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE) 239 (271) (Ger.).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Case C-64/08, Ernst Engelmann, EuZW 821, 822, at para. 35 (2010); Case C-46/08, Carmen Media Group Ltd., NVwZ 1422, 1424, at para. 55 (2010); Case C-243/01, Piergiorgio Gambelli, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031, at para. 67; Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International, 2009 E.C.R. I-7633, at paras. 59–61.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Case C-500/06, Corporación Dermoestética SA, 2008 E.C.R. I-5785, at paras. 39–41.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Case C-169/07, Hartlauer, 2009 E.C.R. I-1721, para. 55.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Case C-341/08, Domnica Petersen, 2010 E.C.R. I-47, para. 53; Case C-88/08, David Hütter, 2009 E.C.R. I-5325, para. 47.Google Scholar

⁵² This also applies to the area of fundamental freedoms as they prohibit restrictions as well as discriminations at the same time. Fundamental freedoms grant a special prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality (in contrast to the general prohibition laid down in Article 18 TFEU), as well as a liberty impeding mere restrictions that do constitute neither direct nor indirect discrimination.Google Scholar

⁵³ In the area of age discrimination see e.g. Case C-250/09, Vasil Ivanov Georgiev, NZA 29, 32, at paras. 55–56 (2011)., Should a fundamental right (i.e. not an equality right) be the main legal yardstick and one wishes to analyze the case under the aspect of coherence, as well, the correct legal yardstick would be a given fundamental right in conjunction with Article 20 of the Charter. Article 20 of the Charter is where the principle of coherence is rooted; c.f. Luzius Wildhaber, Protection against Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, Baltic Yearbook of International Law 71 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ E.g. Case C-341/08, Domnica Petersen v. Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe and Others, NJW 587, 590–591, at paras. 58–62 (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ This applies above all to the principle of proportionality in the area of public law. With regards to the legal Situation in Germany, see Bieder, Marcus, Das ungeschriebene Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip als Schranke privater Rechtsausübung (2007); MichaelStürner, Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Schuldvertragsrecht (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Contra Lüttringhaus, supra note 5, at 296, 298; Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 426; Felix & Sangi, supra note 5, at 258, 259.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Case 152/84, M. H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, 1986 E.C.R. 723, at para. 36.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Tobler, supra note, at 2041, 2050–2056.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at para. 21.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ulrich Haltern, Europarecht (European Law, 2nd ed., 2007), at margin number 598; Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 695.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 429; C.f. Case C-356/09, Christine Kleist, NZA 1401, 1403, at para. 41–43 (2010).Google Scholar

⁶² Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al, supra note 6, at paras. 51, 61, 64–65.Google Scholar

⁶³ Id. at paras. 67.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Tobler, supra note 5, at 2041, 2060; Financial Times Deutschland, supra note 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Britz, Gabriele, Einzelfallgerechtigkeit versus Generalisierung (2008); Temming, supra note 23; Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 698–702.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Felix & Sangi, supra note 5, at 257, 260; Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5, at 714, 717; Even Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 426 (2011) admits this fact; also see Luttringhaus, supra note 5, at 296, 298.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al., supra note 6, at paras. 62–63; Temming, supra note 31, at 72, 73–74, with references concerning pertinent research in notes 16 and 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Because of these findings, I consider the concept of overinclusiveness to be more convincing than does Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 701.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The main reason that a strict level of scrutiny is justifiable is the fact that sex is a personal trait which cannot be easily altered, cf. Temming, supra note 23, at 473 et seq. From an insurer's perspective, it follows from that fact the insured person is less capable of influencing the risk to the disadvantage of the insurer. Interestingly, the reason for the attractiveness to use sex as a risk factor in insurance contracts is the same reason that it is so thoroughly questioned from a normative point of view.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5, at 714, 716–717.Google Scholar

⁷² Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Consommateurs Test-Achats et. al., supra note 6, at paras. 46, 62, 66–67.Google Scholar

⁷³ Preis, Ulrich & Temming, Felipe, Der EuGH, das BVerfG und der Gesetzgeber - Lehren aus Mangold II (The European Court of Justice, the Federal Constitutional Court and the legislature- lessons from Mangold II), NZA 185 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Preis, Ulrich, Schlangenlinien in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH zur Altersdiskriminierung ('Wiggly’ lines in the ECJ's case law on age discrimination), NZA 1323 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cf. Gisela Rosenbladt, supra note 37, on the one hand, and Case C-447/09, Reinhard Prigge u.a., NZA 1039-1044 (2011), and Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci, 2010 E.C.R. I-365 on the other.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Reich, supra note 5, at 283, 290; Thiery, supra note 4, at 28, 30; Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5, at 714, 717; Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 702.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Purnhagen, supra note 5, at 690, 702.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Hofer, supra note 5, at 1334; Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5, at 714, 715.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Rolfs & Binz, supra note 5, at 714, 717; contra Looschelders, supra note 5, at 421, 427.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See also Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-5769 (“Family reunification”).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Kerschbaumer, supra note 4, at 363, 364–365; Höfer, supra note 5, at 1334, 1335; Birk, supra, note 5, at 819.Google Scholar

⁸² Case C-227/04 P, Maria-Luise Lindorfer v. Council, 2007 E.C.R. I-6767 with a case note by Katharina Miller, Geschlechtsdiskriminierung bei versicherungsmathematischen Berechnungen (Gender discrimination in actuarial calculations), Streit 73 (2008).Google Scholar

⁸³ See supra note 31.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Picked up by Thiery, supra note 4, at 28, 30; Luttringhaus, supra note 5, at 296, 297.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Compare Case C-356/09, Christine Kleist, NZA 1401–1404 (2010) and Gisela Rosenbladt, supra note 37; see also Temming, Felipe, The Palacios Case: Turning Point in Age Discrimination Law?, European Law Reporter (ELR) 382, 388–390 (2007).Google Scholar