(Third Chamber) The trustees complained that the respondent had failed to implement the Directive, in that there remained, for example, rules allowing employers to have fixed retirement ages.
Held: The complaint failed. The Directive allowed states to provide for certain differences in treatment provided that it could be shown to have an objective and reasonable justification by a legitimate aim for the difference in treatment. The required standard of proof was high. Provided the UK Government had legitimate ’employment policy, labour market, and vocational training aims’ and provided the Age Regulations were a proportionate means of achieving those aims, the Age Regulations would be lawful. It was for the national court to resolve those points.
A Rosas, President of Chamber and Judges A O Caoimh, J. Klucka, U. Lohmus and P. Lindh Advocate-General J. Mazak
[2009] EUECJ C-388/07, C-388/07, [2009] All ER (EC) 619, [2009] IRLR 373, [2009] 3 CMLR 4, [2009] ICR 1080, [2009] Pens LR 115
Bailii, Times
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of November 27, 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 1031 No 2006)
European
Citing:
Opinion – Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ECJ 23-Sep-2008
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6(1) Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement National legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 and over if the reason of dismissal is retirement . .
At High Court – The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging (Age Concern England), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Admn 24-Jul-2007
Age Concern challenged the implimentation of the European Directive as regards the prohibition of age discrimination. . .
Cited – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 16-Oct-2007
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Spain had legislated for compulsory retirement when it wanted to encourage recruitment; then abolished it when economic circumstances improved and it wanted to encourage people to stay in . .
Cited by:
ECJ Judgment – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Cited – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) CA 28-Jul-2010
The claimant solicitor said that the compulsory retirement from his partnership on age grounds was discriminatory, and that the UK Regulations had not implemented the Directive fully.
Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the provision as to . .
Cited – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant claimed that the requirement imposed on him to retire from his law firm partnership on attaining 65 was an unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age.
Held: The matter was remitted to the Employment tribunal to see whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.332835
