Skip to main content

Age Discrimination as a Bone of Contention in the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 1))

Abstract

Age discrimination takes place when a person is treated less favourably than others merely on the ground of his/her age without any justified reason. Unjustified differential treatment on grounds of age in workplace is prohibited under both international and national documents. The practice reveals that it is generally the older people who are more likely to be subject to this unfair treatment. Taking into consideration the major demographic challenges such as the decrease in the fertility rates and the extension of the life expectancies of older people in the EU, this issue becomes more urgent and significant to deal with. This critical matter is furthermore accompanied by the decrease of the working age population of the EU and the increase of the social security spending of the EU Member States.

Yet, the EU is trying to invoke some measures such as raising the retirement ages and strengthening the labour market participation of older workers. However, it’s seen that most of the Member States on the contrary tend to pursue social policies including the implementation of compulsory retirement ages for older workers which are generally justified by the objective of keeping an intergenerational balance between old and young workers. In this study, this contradiction between the EU’s and the Member States’ polices is questioned and deeply analysed in light of both the EU’s future demographic challenges and the recent case law of the European Court of Justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sargeant (2011), p. 7.

  2. 2.

    Ellis and Watson (2012), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    Ben-Israel and Foubert (2004), p. 324.

  4. 4.

    Tobler (2005), p. 25.

  5. 5.

    Ben-Israel and Foubert (2004), pp. 325–327.

  6. 6.

    Sargeant (2006), pp. 1–5.

  7. 7.

    Kaya (2015a), p. 85.

  8. 8.

    R162 Older Workers Recommendation (1980), Geneva, 66th ILC session. <www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312500>. (‘Recommendation’).

  9. 9.

    Recommendation Art. 3.

  10. 10.

    Sargeant (2006), p. 6.

  11. 11.

    Drury (1994), p. 497.

  12. 12.

    Drury (1994), p. 497.

  13. 13.

    Ghosheh (2008), p. 23.

  14. 14.

    Drury (1994), p. 497.

  15. 15.

    Ghosheh (2008), p. 23.

  16. 16.

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was proclaimed at the Nice European Council of the EU on 7 December 2000. However, it was within the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 that the Charter started to have a binding legal force on both the EU institutions and the Member States.

  17. 17.

    Article 21 of the Charter provides as: “Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.”

  18. 18.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303/16–22 (2000).

  19. 19.

    Gyulavári (2013), p. 382.

  20. 20.

    This non-exhaustive list of differential treatment which may be invoked by the Member States, is enshrined in Art.6/1(a)-(b)-(c) of the Directive 2000/78 and covers the introduction of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection; the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment; the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.

  21. 21.

    Recital 14 provides as: “This Directive shall be without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages.”.

  22. 22.

    Recital 25 provides as: “The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the aims set out in the Employment Guidelines and encouraging diversity in the workforce. However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States. It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited.”.

  23. 23.

    Goebel (2017), p. 316.

  24. 24.

    Dewhurst (2013), p. 532.

  25. 25.

    Ellis and Watson (2012), pp. 408–409.

  26. 26.

    Gyulavári (2013), p. 384.

  27. 27.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005).

  28. 28.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 14.

  29. 29.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 57.

  30. 30.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 58.

  31. 31.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 59.

  32. 32.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 65.

  33. 33.

    Kaya (2012), p. 188; Schlachter (2011), p. 288; Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 75.

  34. 34.

    Numhauser-Henning (2013), pp. 391–392.

  35. 35.

    Shaw and Shaw (2010), p. 281.

  36. 36.

    Sargeant (2011), p. 6.

  37. 37.

    Eurostat Population Structure and Ageing, Eurostat Statistics Explained.

  38. 38.

    European Commission 2018 Ageing Report (2017), p. 3.

  39. 39.

    Eurostat Population Structure and Ageing, Eurostat Statistics Explained. <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing>.

  40. 40.

    Kaya (2015a), p. 91.

  41. 41.

    Eurostat Population Structure and Ageing, Eurostat Statistics Explained. <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing>.

  42. 42.

    Schlachter (2011), p. 288.

  43. 43.

    Kaya (2015a), pp. 91–92.

  44. 44.

    Commission Communication on Increasing the Employment of Older Workers and Delaying the Exit from the Labour Market, COM (2004) 146 final of 3 March 2004. (‘Commission Communication’).

  45. 45.

    Commission Communication (2004), p. 3.

  46. 46.

    Commission Communication (2004), p. 3.

  47. 47.

    Commission Communication (2004), p. 3; Goebel (2017), p. 315.

  48. 48.

    Commission Communication (2004), pp. 3–4.

  49. 49.

    Commission Communication Europe 2020, A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM (2010) 2020 final of 3 March 2010. (‘Europe 2020 Strategy’).

  50. 50.

    Europe 2020 Strategy (2010), p. 8.

  51. 51.

    Employment and activity by sex and age - annual data, Eurostat; Europe 2020 Strategy (2010), p. 5.

    <http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do>.

  52. 52.

    Employment and activity by sex and age - annual data, Eurostat.

    <http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do>.

  53. 53.

    Employment Data, OECD Data.

  54. 54.

    Employment Rate of Persons Aged 55–64 Years, Eurostat Statistics Explained (2017). <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rate_of_persons_aged_15-64_years,_2007_and_2017_(%25)_world18.png>.

  55. 55.

    İçduygu and Karaçay (2012), p. 27; Kaya (2015b), p. 58.

  56. 56.

    O’Cinneide (2008), p. 16.

  57. 57.

    Goebel (2017), p. 325.

  58. 58.

    Sargeant (2006), p. 7.

  59. 59.

    Dewhurst (2015), pp. 192–202.

  60. 60.

    Ghosheh (2008), p. 5.

  61. 61.

    Kaya (2015a), p. 99.

  62. 62.

    Kaya (2015a), pp. 100, 114; Goebel (2017), p. 361.

  63. 63.

    Unemployment by sex and age-annual average, Eurostat. <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database>.

  64. 64.

    Youth unemployment rate aged 15–24, Eurostat. <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tipslm80&language=en>.

  65. 65.

    Goebel (2017), p. 323.

  66. 66.

    Sargeant (2012), p. 7.

  67. 67.

    Dewhurst (2013), pp. 532–533.

  68. 68.

    Goebel (2017), p. 336.

  69. 69.

    Goebel (2017), p. 338.

  70. 70.

    Goebel (2017), pp. 338–339.

  71. 71.

    Goebel (2017), p. 397.

  72. 72.

    Manfredi and Vickers (2013), p. 255.

  73. 73.

    Manfredi and Vickers (2013), p. 255.

  74. 74.

    Manfredi and Vickers (2013), pp. 267–271.

  75. 75.

    Goebel makes a reference to a study carried out by the National Academy of Science in the US within the early 1990s concerning the outcomes of the removal of compulsory retirement on higher education institutions. For further details, see Goebel (2017), p. 362.

  76. 76.

    Goebel (2017), p. 366.

  77. 77.

    Schiek (2011), p. 777.

  78. 78.

    Dewhurst (2013), pp. 525–526.

  79. 79.

    Dewhurst (2013), pp. 527–529.

  80. 80.

    Schiek (2011), pp. 784–785.

  81. 81.

    Case C-411/05, Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (ECJ 16 October 2007), para. 68.

  82. 82.

    Hendrickx (2012), p. 5; Hendrickx (2016), pp. 3–4.

  83. 83.

    Hendrickx (2012), p. 5.

  84. 84.

    Manfredi and Vickers (2013), pp. 252–253.

  85. 85.

    Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005).

  86. 86.

    Schiek (2011), p. 785; Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (ECJ 22 November 2005), para. 65.

  87. 87.

    Case C-411/05, Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (ECJ 16 October 2007).

  88. 88.

    Schiek (2011), p. 785; Case C-411/05, Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (ECJ 16 October 2007), para. 68.

  89. 89.

    Goebel (2017), p. 331.

  90. 90.

    Case C-388/07, The Queen, on the application of The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ECJ 5 March 2009).

  91. 91.

    Schiek (2011), p. 786; Case C-388/07, The Queen, on the application of The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ECJ 5 March 2009), para. 51.

  92. 92.

    Kaya (2015a), p. 96.

  93. 93.

    Dewhurst (2013), p. 530.

  94. 94.

    Case C-341/08, Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (ECJ 12 January 2010).

  95. 95.

    Case C-341/08 Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (ECJ 12 January 2010), para. 49.

  96. 96.

    Case C-45/09, Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH (ECJ 12 October 2010).

  97. 97.

    Case C-141/11, Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB (ECJ 5 July 2012).

  98. 98.

    Goebel (2017), p. 331.

  99. 99.

    Goebel (2017), p. 332.

  100. 100.

    Case C-411/05, Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (ECJ 16 October 2007), para. 73; Case C-141/11 Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB (ECJ 5 July 2012), para. 42; Case C-45/09, Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH (ECJ 12 October 2010), para. 48. Advocate General Trstenjak does not accept that opinion. See Case C-45/09, Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak (ECJ 28 April 2010), para. 161.

  101. 101.

    Goebel (2017), p. 332.

  102. 102.

    Case C-45/09, Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak (ECJ 28 April 2010), para. 163.

  103. 103.

    Case C-141/11, Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB (ECJ 5 July 2012), para. 17.

  104. 104.

    Goebel (2017), p. 332.

  105. 105.

    Dewhurst (2015), pp. 196–199.

  106. 106.

    Sargeant (2011), pp. 1–3.

  107. 107.

    Goebel (2017), p. 341.

  108. 108.

    Goebel (2017), p. 365.

  109. 109.

    Drury (1994), p. 497.

References

  • Ben-Israel, Ruth, and P. Foubert. 2004. Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment. In Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies, ed. Roger Blanpain, 321–357. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst, Elaine. 2013. The Development of EU Case-Law on Age Discrimination in Employment: ‘Will You Still Need Me? Will You Still Feed Me? When I’m Sixty-Four’. European Law Journal 19: 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Are Older Workers Past Their Sell-by-Date? A View from UK Age Discrimination Law. The Modern Law Review 78: 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury, Elizabeth. 1994. Age Discrimination Against Older Workers in the European Union. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance- Issues and Practice 19: 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.1994.32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Evelyn, and Philippa Watson. 2012. EU Anti-Discrimination Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, (November 2017) The 2018 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions & Projection Methodologies, (Institutional Paper 65). https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip065_en.pdf.

  • Ghosheh, Naj. 2008. Age Discrimination and Older Workers: Theory and Legislation in Comparative Context. Conditions of Work and Employment Series No.20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, Roger J. 2017. Adding a Little Gold to the Golden Years: Should the European Union Prohibit Compulsory Retirement as Age-Based Discrimination in Employment. Columbia Journal of European Law 23: 305–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyulavári, Tamas. 2013. Age Discrimination: Recent Case Law of the European Court of Justice. Academy of European Law Forum 14: 377–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickx, Frank. 2012. Age and European Employment Discrimination Law. In Active Ageing and Labour Law. Contributions in Honour of Professor Roger Blanpain, ed. Frank Hendrickz, 3–26. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Setting the Scene: Development of the CJEU Jurisprudence on Age Discrimination in Employment. In Challenges of Active Ageing, Equality Law and the Workplace, ed. Manfredi Simonetta and Lucy Vickers, 3–27. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • İçduygu, Ahmet, and Ayşem Biriz Karaçay. 2012. Demography and Migration in Transition: Reflections on EU-Turkey Relations. In Turkey, Migration and the EU: Potentials, Challenges and Opportunities, Edition HWWI, ed. Seçil Paçacı Elitok and Thomas Straubhaar, 19–38. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, Gözde. 2012. Avrupa Birliği İş Hukuku’nda Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı. Avrupa Birliği Bakanlığı Akademik Araştırmalar Serisi-1: 1725–1752.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015a. EU Age Discrimination in Light of EU’s Demographic Challenges and ECJ Case Law. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi 17: 79–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. The Quest for Turkish Migration to the European Union, Exploring the Misconceptions (Chapter Three). In Global Migration: Old Assumptions, New Dynamics, ed. Diego Acosta Arcarazo and Anja Wiesbrock, vol. 2, 47–66. Wien/Leipzig: Prager.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, Simonetta, and Lucy Vickers. 2013. Meeting the Challenges of Active Ageing in the Workplace: Is the Abolition of Retirement the Answer? European Labour Law Journal 4: 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/201395251300400402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Numhauser-Henning, Ann. 2013. The EU Ban on Age-Discrimination and Older Workers: Potentials and Pitfalls. The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 29: 391–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Cinneide, Colm. 2008. Age Discrimination and Mandatory Retirement. European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 6: 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, Malcolm. 2006. Age Discrimination in Employment. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Ageism and Age Discrimination. In Age Discrimination and Diversity, Multiple Discrimination from an Age Perspective, ed. Malcolm Sargeant, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Employer Justified Retirement Ages. Paper Presented at the Academy of European Law Anti-Discrimination Seminar (ERA), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, Dagmar. 2011. Age Discrimination Before the ECJ-Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Common Market Law Review 48: 777–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlachter, Monika. 2011. Mandatory Retirement and Age Discrimination under EU Law. The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 27: 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Julia J.A., and Hillary J. Shaw. 2010. Recent Advancements in European Employment Law: Towards a Transformative Legal Formula for Preventing Workplace Ageism. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 26: 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, Christa. 2005. Indirect Discrimination, A Case Study in to the Development of the Legal Concept of Indirect Discrimination under EC Law, Social Europe Series. Vol. 10. Mortsel: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gözde Kaya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kaya, G. (2020). Age Discrimination as a Bone of Contention in the EU. In: Giegerich, T. (eds) The European Union as Protector and Promoter of Equality. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43764-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43763-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43764-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics