Countries Can Impose Compulsory Retirement Ages
Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (Case C-411/05)
ECJ
16 October 2007
Weekly Law Notes Summary
Although a Spanish law permitting compulsory retirement at age 65 gave rise to a difference in treatment directly based on age, as referred to in art 2 of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, it was justified under art 6 as a measure having a legitimate aim relating to employment policy.
And here is Daniel Barnett's reading of the case:
Retirement and Age Discrimination
The ECJ has handed down its opinion in the important case of Palacios v Cortefiel Servicios SA, holding that the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive does not prohibit member states from introducing mandatory retirement ages.
Disagreeing with the Advocate-General (see bulletin 15/2/07), the ECJ held that a general mandatory retirement age did fall within the scope of what the Directive prohibited.
However, the ECJ considered that a mandatory retirement age was justified, as it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate social aim of promoting employment opportunities and reducing unemployment.
As readers will know, Heyday are currently challenging the UK's retirement provisions before the ECJ (see bulletins 5/10/06 and 6/12/06). This decision will cause much glumness at Heyday's offices this morning, and no doubt champage corks are being popped over at DBERR (i.e. the DTI, as it used to be called).
Visit http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/ to subscribe to Daniel's regular email updates