The plaintiff brought an action against the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (literally translated: Pension Insurance Institution) claiming a higher pension, arguing that the implementation of an adjustment factor for pensions, established in 2008, resulted in indirect discrimination against women who were disproportionately less likely to qualify for an exceptional pension increase.
The local court denied the petitioner’s motion to certify the approval of her female partner to conduct in vitro fertilization with a third person’s semen. The regional court denied the appeal. It held that the wording of the Austrian Reproductive Medicine Act (FMedG) aims to exclude same-sex parenthood. The Supreme Court decided to bring this question to the attention of the Austrian Constitutional Court. The Austrian Constitutional Court decided that certain sections of the FMedG were unconstitutional.
The female appellant, a civil servant of the Office of the Austrian Labor Market, applied for a position as head of the relevant regional office with three other male candidates. One of the men was chosen for the position. The plaintiff claimed that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex, among other reasons, because she was equally qualified for the position and the interviewer asked her why women could not find fulfilment in educating children during the application process.
