CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 September 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13129/19 Prasannakumary MANNANTHARA NATARAJAN against Germany lodged on 5 March 2019 communicated on 1 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns social law proceedings during which the national courts abstained from requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling. During social law proceedings concerning the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights in Germany with regard to the time which she had spent in the United Kingdom to bring up her son, the applicant requested a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”). While the Social Court and the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim and referral request with reference to European Union law and the case ‑ law of the CJEU, the Federal Social Court declared the applicant’s appeal against the denial of leave to appeal on points of law inadmissible without giving any further reasoning as to the referral. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication, without providing any reasons. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national proceedings were unfair and in particular that the national courts did not provide (sufficient) reasons for their decisions not to refer the case for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, was a complaint of a violation of the right to be heard in accordance with section 178a(1) of the German Social Courts Act an available and effective remedy with regard to the right on which the applicant now relies before the Court?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the refusal of the Federal Social Court to refer the applicant’s questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling render the proceedings unfair (see Sanofi Pasteur v.   France , no. 25137/16, §§ 67-68, 13 February 2020)? In this context, did the applicant sufficiently plead her request before the national courts to obtain a preliminary ruling (see, for example, Baydar v. the Netherlands , no.   55385/14, § 42, 24 April 2018)?   Did the reasoning of the Federal Social Court in itself, or in conjunction with the decision of the Social Court of Appeal, suffice to comply with the State’s obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L. v. Romania , no. 43639/17, §§ 53-57, 13 July 2021; Sanofi   Pasteur , cited above, §§ 73-80; Baltic Master Ltd. v. Lithuania , no.   55092/16, §§ 40-44, 16 April 2019; and Dhahbi v. Italy , no. 17120/09, §§   31-34, 8 April 2014; and compare Harisch v. Germany , no. 50053/16, §§   37-43, 11 April 2019)?