The claimant, a senior bailiff (Obergerichtsvollzieher) in the service of the defendant federal state, seeks reimbursement of the acquisition costs of computer glasses.

In support of his application for authorisation to purchase computer glasses and for reimbursement of the acquisition costs, the claimant had submitted three cost estimates and a certificate issued by an ophthalmologist attesting to the need for such glasses. The employer rejected the application on the ground that such expenses were covered by the salary paid to the bailiff in addition to the remuneration. The claimant's objection (Widerspruch) to this was unsuccessful.

The action for a new administrative decision was successful before the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht). The Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and dismissed the action on the ground that the claimant had no right to reimbursement. Although, in his capacity as a civil servant, the claimant was in principle entitled to occupational health and safety measures and thus to the computer glasses applied for, the cost of which, at EUR 358, were also reasonable. However, bailiffs received a share between 45% and 55% of the amount of fees they generate in addition to their remuneration. They had to finance the typical costs of a bailiff's work from this share. This included office equipment and work equipment. Computer glasses constituted such work equipment. Nor did the costs incurred for this purpose constitute an inadmissible additional financial cost within the meaning of EU law, since it was not the bailiff's alimentation that was affected, but only his share of the fees in excess thereof.

The claimant's appeal on points of law met with success.

6 The claimant's appeal on points of law is well founded. The judgment of the Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) violates law that is subject to an appeal on points of law (section 137 (1) no. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung), section 127 no. 2 of the Civil Servants Framework Act (BRRG, Beamtenrechtsrahmengesetz), section 63 (3) second sentence of the Act on the Status of Civil Servants (BeamtStG, Beamtenstatusgesetz), section 62 of the Act on Civil Servants of the Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate (LBG RP, Landesbeamtengesetz) of 20 October 2010, Law and Ordinance Gazette (GVBl., Gesetz‑ und Verordnungsblatt) p. 319)).

7 The legal basis for the claimant's entitlement to reimbursement of expenses for the purchase of computer glasses is section 62 LBG RP in conjunction with sections 3, 18, 19 of the Safety and Health at Work Act (ArbSchG, Arbeitsschutzgesetz) and section 5 (1) as well as Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence of the Ordinance on Occupational Health Care (ArbMedVV, Verordnung zur arbeitsmedizinischen Vorsorge) of 18 December 2008 (Federal Law Gazette (BGBl., Bundesgesetzblatt) I p. 2768), last amended by Ordinance of 15 November 2016 (BGBl. I p. 2549). These provisions transpose into national law the EU display screen related occupational health and safety requirements under article 9 of the Council Directive of the European Communities of 29 May 1990 - Directive 90/270/EEC - (OJ L 156 p. 14).

8 Accordingly, workers must be provided with special visual aids for their work at computer screens by their public or private employers within the framework of optional health care (Angebotsvorsorge) under section 5 (1) ArbMedVV if the outcome of a previously carried out optional health care shows that special visual aids are necessary and normal visual aids are unsuitable (1.). Computer glasses constitute a special visual aid (2.), which the employer is obliged to procure (3.). An application for reimbursement of costs is the admissible surrogate for the right to receive equipment as provided for by law (4.).

9 1. Section 62 (1) LBG RP provides for the application of the ordinances issued on the basis of sections 18 and 19 ArbSchG of 7 August 1996 (BGBl. I p. 1246), as amended. Pursuant to section 3 (1) first sentence ArbSchG, the employer has a duty to take the necessary measures of occupational safety and health, taking account of the circumstances, to influence the safety and health of workers at work. Employers within this meaning are also legal persons employing civil servants (section 2 (3) in conjunction with (2) no. 4 ArbSchG, see also Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG, Bundesverwaltungsgericht) judgment of 23 June 2016 - 2 C 18.15 - (...) para. 47). The employer of a civil servant bailiff under the law relating to safety and health at work is directly the respective federal state as employer of the civil servant employed there (see section 2 no. 1 BeamtStG, section 3 (2) LBG RP). Civil servants are also workers within the meaning of the Safety and Health at Work Act (section 2 (2) no. 4 ArbSchG). The authorisations to issue ordinances under sections 18 and 19 ArbSchG provide for the possibility to prescribe by means of an ordinance the measures to be taken by the employer.

10 Section 5 (1) first sentence ArbMedVV in the version of 23 October 2013 (BGBl. I p. 3882) stipulates that the employer must offer workers optional health care in accordance with the provisions of the Annex. Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 ArbMedVV stipulates that optional health care in the case of activities involving work at computer screens shall include the offer of a suitable examination of the eyes and visual faculty. If, on the basis of an optional health care appointment, an ophthalmologic examination is deemed necessary, this shall be made possible. Workers shall be provided with special visual aids in the required extent for their work at a computer screen if the outcome of the preventive occupational health care shows that special visual aids are necessary and normal visual aids are unsuitable.

11 Finally, pursuant to article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC, employers are obliged to provide their workers with special corrective appliances for display screen work if the results of an ophthalmological examination of the eyes and eyesight show that special corrective appliances are necessary and that normal corrective appliances cannot be used. In no circumstances may the measures so taken involve workers in additional financial cost. The term "display screen equipment" defined in article 2 (a) of Directive 90/270/EEC - as an alphanumeric or graphic display screen, regardless of the display process employed - is to be understood in a broad sense in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, judgment of 6 July 2000 - C-11/99 - (...) Dietrich, para. 41).

12 2. Computer glasses are special visual aids within the meaning of section 5 (1) first sentence ArbMedVV in conjunction with Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV and article 9 (3) of Directive 90/270/EEC. They should provide a large field of view for short and medium distances, enabling a clear view of the screen and keyboard while maintaining a relaxed posture.

13 Such special visual aids are special work equipment which, according to findings by an ophthalmologist in the individual case, is necessary to protect the civil servant from health impairments - in this case of the eyes and visual faculty - at the workplace (BVerwG, judgment of 27 February 2003 - 2 C 2.02 - (...)). It constitutes a special aid for special personal needs, which differs from "special expenses typical of the activity of a bailiff, in particular for furnishing and operating of the office" within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Ordinance on the Remuneration of Bailiffs of the Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate of 8 December 2015 (GVBl. 2015, 437 - GVVergVO RP, Gerichtsvollziehervergütungsverordnung Rheinland-Pfalz -). Such general-purpose expenses typical of the bailiff's activity, include for instance costs for office premises, including any ancillary rooms, heating, electricity and water, including waste water disposal, cleaning costs for business premises, office furniture and office machines (e.g. photocopiers, fax machines, telephone equipment, computers, document shredders), computer hardware, computer software, other office equipment (e.g. lamps, curtains, carpets), incidentals (e.g. paper, toner), literature, telephone, mobile phone and internet connection service charges, insurance policies required for the performance of the bailiff's activity (e.g. liability, household contents and, where appropriate, proportional building insurances), maintenance, repairs and upkeep, interest on debts payable for the purchase of office equipment financed by credit, and personnel overheads (...).

14 By contrast, section 1 (3) first sentence GVVergVO RP does not cover special personal needs due to health impairments.

15 3. Under article 9 (3) of Directive 90/270/EEC, section 2 (2) ArbSchG, section 18 (2) ArbSchG, section 5 ArbMedVV in conjunction with Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV, the employer shall generally and without exception provide his or her workers - whether they are employees, persons comparable to employees or civil servants (section 2 (2) no. 1, 3 and 4 ArbSchG) - with special visual aids for the work in question where this is deemed necessary on the basis of an ophthalmological examination. The reason to exclude the bailiff's claim invoked by the Higher Administrative Court in its appeal judgment - no obligation to provide the special visual aid due to the specific arrangement governing the service relationship of a civil servant bailiff - is unknown under EU and federal law. The public employer shall provide the special visual aids without exception to all workers and civil servants working for him or her and having such special personal needs in accordance with the findings by an ophthalmologist, without prejudice to the specific arrangements governing the employment or service relationship (...).

16 For bailiffs, the provisions on the reimbursement of office costs do not constitute more specific provisions to be given priority in relation to section 5 (1) first sentence ArbMedVV in conjunction with Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV. The acquisition costs for computer glasses are not "typical expenses, for, in particular, the furnishing and operation of the office, including personnel overheads as well as night work" within the meaning of section 1 (3) GVVergVO RP.

17 EU law - specifically article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC - requires that Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV be regarded as a claim leaving no room for restrictions or lump sum payments. In particular, the impermissibility of additional financial cost ("in no circumstances") under article 9 (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC is contrary to the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal. The protective purpose of this provision under health and safety at work law is only taken into account if, in a specific case, the worker does not need to consider whether or not he or she can afford the special visual aids required in such individual case in accordance with the findings of an ophthalmologist. This is only possible if the employer always provides the necessary visual aid for the worker free of charge or reimburses the worker in full.

18 This applies regardless of whether or not and to what extent expenses for the bailiff's computer glasses as such are actually considered in the assessment of reimbursement of office costs for bailiffs. Where expenses for computer glasses are actually taken into account on a lump-sum basis, the bailiff's individual claim under Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV does not lapse as a result.

19 The legal principle pronounced in the appeal judgment, according to which, due to the specific arrangement governing their service relationships, bailiffs were themselves responsible for furnishing and maintaining their offices and thus were also responsible for purchasing computer glasses, thus breaches EU law as it fails to recognise the primacy of the application of article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC (on the primacy of application of EU law, see, e.g., BVerwG, judgments of 26 July 2012 - 2 C 70.11 - (...) para. 7 and of 20 July 2017 - 2 C 31.16 - Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwGE, Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts) 159, 245 para. 18 with further references). Furthermore, the aforementioned legal principle pronounced in the appeal judgment is in violation of section 2 (2) no. 4, section 18 ArbSchG in conjunction with section 5 ArbMedVV and Annex Part 4 (2) no. 1 fourth sentence ArbMedVV and thus of higher-ranking federal law.

20 4. The reimbursement sought by the claimant is the surrogate for the right to receive equipment as provided for in law. This excludes payment of only a supplement to necessary expenses or to expenses actually incurred or any crediting against any other payments for identical purposes. Article 9 (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC stipulates that providing workers with special visual aids must in no circumstances involve workes in additional financial cost. It is not compatible with this requirement if, as a result, the worker has to bear part of the necessary expenses himself or herself (see BVerwG, judgment of 27 February 2003 - 2 C 2.02 - (...)).