Gondert v Germany · No. 34701/21
European Court of Human Rights · 16 December 2025 · Article 6 § 1
Heinz-Günter Gondert retired from the German office of an international law firm. He believed its pension arrangements treated older partners less favourably. He won at first instance in Frankfurt. The appeal court reversed that result, accepting that younger partners had an advantage but finding the difference justified under EU law.
The request he put on the record
Gondert asked the Federal Court of Justice to refer specific questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. He set out why the answers mattered to his case. The German court refused leave to appeal. It said it had considered a referral, without explaining why one was unnecessary. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear his complaint.
Why Strasbourg found a breach
A litigant cannot insist that every question go to Luxembourg. Here the final court had an explicit, reasoned request before it. Its decision gave Gondert no way to tell whether the question was irrelevant, already answered or sufficiently clear. That gap in the reasons breached his right to a fair hearing.
What Gondert won
Strasbourg awarded €3,000 for non-pecuniary harm and €2,000 for costs. It did not calculate his pension or direct Luxembourg to decide the dispute. The judgment identifies a practical distinction for someone in his position: the record should show the exact question, why the answer matters and what the national court said in response.
Judgment and sources
Read the Strasbourg judgment in HUDOC
The Court Registry’s explanation of Gondert and the contrasting De Simone decision
More Strasbourg cases · Germany national journal · Individual consultations
