Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Setting the Scene: Development of the CJEU Jurisprudence on Age Discrimination in Employment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Challenges of Active Ageing

Abstract

Age discrimination law in the European Union can be understood only if the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is taken into account. Since the adoption of Directive 2000/78, many cases relating to age have come up. However, a proper understanding of age discrimination case law is not self-evident. The case law of the CJEU is quite dynamic and shows a high degree of flexibility, which leaves it difficult to predict.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    F Hendrickx (2012) ‘Age and European employment discrimination law’ in F. Hendrickx (ed.) Active ageing and labour law. Contributions in honour of Professor Roger Blanpain in Social Europe Series 3 (Intersentia) 3–30.

  2. 2.

    Henrickx ‘Age and European employment’.

  3. 3.

    CJEU C-141/11 Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB (Hörnfeldt‘) judgment 5 July 2012.

  4. 4.

    Para 37 Hörnfeldt.

  5. 5.

    The 2012 ageing report, Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010–2060), Joint Report prepared by the European Commission (DG ECFIN) and the Economic Policy Committee (AWG), European Economy 2, 2012, 25–26.

  6. 6.

    Cf. European Year for Active Ageing website: http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.jsp?catId=971 (accessed 11 September 2012).

  7. 7.

    The WHO speaks about ‘good economic reasons’ referring to cost in pensions and health care as well as intergenerational solidarity: World Health Organization (April 2002) Active Ageing: a Policy Framework, A contribution of the World Health Organization to the Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, (Madrid, Spain) 17.

  8. 8.

    See: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1062&langId=en (accessed 15 June 2015).

  9. 9.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2 December 2000, no. L 303.

  10. 10.

    Directive 2000/78, Preamble 7.

  11. 11.

    Directive 2000/78, Preamble 8.

  12. 12.

    Directive 2000/78, Preamble 25.

  13. 13.

    Directive 2000/78, Preamble 9.

  14. 14.

    Cf. article 1 Directive 2000/78.

  15. 15.

    Article 1, b, i Directive 2000/78.

  16. 16.

    Article 4, 1 Directive 2000/78.

  17. 17.

    Article 6, 1 Directive 2000/78.

  18. 18.

    Article 6, 2 Directive 2000/78.

  19. 19.

    CJEU C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (‘Mangold’) judgment 22 November 2005.

  20. 20.

    Para. 60, Mangold.

  21. 21.

    Para. 61, Mangold.

  22. 22.

    Para. 63, Mangold.

  23. 23.

    Para. 64, Mangold.

  24. 24.

    Para. 75, Mangold.

  25. 25.

    CJEU Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA judgment 16 October 2007.

  26. 26.

    Para. 44, Palacios.

  27. 27.

    Para. 58, Palacios.

  28. 28.

    Para. 64, Palacios.

  29. 29.

    Para. 63, Mangold.

  30. 30.

    Para. 68, Palacios.

  31. 31.

    This point is elaborated in M. Schlachter (2011) ‘Mandatory Retirement and Age Discrimination under EU Law’, Int J Comp LLIR Vol. 27(3), 290.

  32. 32.

    CJEU 12 October 2010, C-45/09, Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges.

  33. 33.

    Pro memorie, the governments of Denmark, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom intervened in the case.

  34. 34.

    Para. 44, Rosenbladt.

  35. 35.

    Para. 43, Rosenbladt.

  36. 36.

    Para. 51 and 62, Rosenbladt.

  37. 37.

    Para. 74, Rosenbladt.

  38. 38.

    CJEU Joint cases C-250/09 and C-268/09, Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet—Sofia, filial Plovdiv judgment 18 November 2010.

  39. 39.

    Para. 45, Georgiev.

  40. 40.

    Para. 46, Georgiev.

  41. 41.

    Para. 54, Georgiev.

  42. 42.

    Cf. para. 43, Rosenbladt.

  43. 43.

    CJEU, C-159/10 and C-160/10, Gerard Fuchs en Peter Köhler v Land Hessen judgment 21 July 2011.

  44. 44.

    Para. 50 and 68, Fuchs.

  45. 45.

    CJEU, C-141/11, Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB, para. 26 judgment 5 July 2012.

  46. 46.

    Para. 38, Hörnfeldt.

  47. 47.

    Cf. CJEU C-109/88 Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss (‘Danfoss’) judgment 17 October 1989; CJEU C-184/89 Helga Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (‘Nimz’) judgment 7 February 1991; C-127/92 Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (‘Enderby’) judgment 27 October 1993; CJEU C-17/05 B F Cadman v Health & Safety Executive (‘Cadman’) judgment 3 October 2006.

  48. 48.

    Cadman.

  49. 49.

    Cf. C W G Rayer (2010) note on ‘European Court of Justice, 19 January 2010, C-555/07’, ELLJ Vol. 1 (2), 264–268; D Schiek, (2010) ‘Constitutional principles and horizontal effect: Kücükdeveci revisited’, ELLJ Vol. 1(2), 368–379.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 22 judgment 19 January 2010.

  51. 51.

    CJEU C-297/10 and 298/10, Sabine Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt & Land Berlin v Alexander Mai (‘Hennigs’) judgment 8 September 2011.

  52. 52.

    Para. 72 Hennigs.

  53. 53.

    For a negative answer: E Howard (2006) ‘The case for a considered hierarchy of discrimination ground in EU law’, MJ Vol. 13(4), 445–470.

  54. 54.

    M Sargeant (2006) Age Discrimination in Employment, (Aldershot, Gower) 4; J. Macnicol (2006) Age discrimination: an historical and contemporary analysis, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) 24–25.

  55. 55.

    M H S Gijzen (2006) Selected Issues in Equal Treatment Law: A multi-layered comparison of European English and Dutch law, (Antwerp, Intersentia) 436.

  56. 56.

    Cf. S Fredman in S Spencer (2003) Age as an equality issue, (Oxford, Hart Publishing) 47.

  57. 57.

    M Bell and L Waddington (2003) ‘Reflecting on Inequalities in European Equality Law’, E.L.Rev. Vol. 28(3), 359.

  58. 58.

    Cf. K Riach (2007)’ ‘Othering’ older worker identity in recruitment’, Human Relations, Vol. 60(11), 1719.

  59. 59.

    Further elaborated in Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, OJ C83, Vol. 53, 30 March 2010.

  60. 60.

    C O’Cinneide (2009–2010) ‘Age discrimination and the European Court of Justice: EU equality law comes of age’, R.A.E.—L.E.A. 2009–2010/2, 265.

  61. 61.

    Para. 63–65 Palacios.

  62. 62.

    See Preambles 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/78.

  63. 63.

    C O’Cinneide 266.

  64. 64.

    Para. 28, Hörnfeldt.

  65. 65.

    CJEU C-229/08, Colin Wolf v. Stadt Frankfurt am Main judgment 12 January 2010.

  66. 66.

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

  67. 67.

    Para. 46 Age Concern.

  68. 68.

    Para. 51 Age Concern.

  69. 69.

    Cf. W Swinnen (2010) ‘The economic perspective in the reasoning of the ECJ in age discrimination cases’, ELLJ Vol. 1(2) 261.

  70. 70.

    T Andersen, J H Haahr, M E Hansen and M Holm-Pedersen (2008) Job mobility in the European Union: optimising its social and economic benefits, Final Report, prepared under contract to the European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities in response to tender no. (VT/2006/043 (Danish Technological Institute, Centre Policy and Business Analysis) 5–6.

  71. 71.

    S Nickell and R Layard (1999) ‘Labor market institutions and economic performance’ in O Ashenfelter and D Card (eds.), Handbook of labor economics, III (Amsterdam, Elsevier Science) 3062–3063; P Skedinger (2010) Employment protection legislation. Evolution, effects, winners and losers (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar), 57–65.

  72. 72.

    OECD, Employment Outlook, 2004, 98–99 (available at www.oecd.org).

  73. 73.

    Para. 64, Mangold.

  74. 74.

    CJEU C-297/10 and 298/10, Hennigs 8 September 2011.

  75. 75.

    Para. 72, Hennigs.

  76. 76.

    Cf. H Meenan (2007) ‘Age discrimination in the EU and the framework directive’ in M. Sargeant (ed.), The law on age discrimination, (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International) 26.

  77. 77.

    Para. 71, Palacios.

  78. 78.

    Para. 72, Palacios.

  79. 79.

    Para 73, Palacios.

  80. 80.

    T I Harbo (March 2010) ‘The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law’, European Law Journal, Vol. 16(2) 185.

  81. 81.

    Cf. L Rodgers (2011) ‘Labour law and the “public interest”: discrimination and beyond’, ELLJ Vol. 2 (4) 302–322.

  82. 82.

    S Manfredi & L Vickers (2013) ‘Meeting the challenges of active ageing in the workplace: is the abolition of retirement the answer?’, ELLJ Vol. 4, 271: ‘left to be determined by market forces and by employer’s business needs’.

  83. 83.

    M Schlachter (2011) ‘Mandatory retirement and age discrimination under EU law’, Int. J. Comp. L.L. and I.R. Vol. 27(3) 294.

  84. 84.

    A Numhauser-Henning (2013)‘Labour law in a greying labour market—in need of a reconceptualisation of work and pension norms’, ELLJ Vol. 4 94.

  85. 85.

    R Fischer (2008) ‘Rewarding seniority: exploring cultural and organisational predictors of seniority allocations’, The Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 148(2) 181; See also: B Barrett & M Sargeant (2015) ‘Working in the UK without a default retirement age: health, safety, and the oldest workers’, ILJ Vol. 44(1) 97.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Frank Hendrickx

Authors
  1. Frank Hendrickx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Simonetta Manfredi

  2. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Lucy Vickers

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hendrickx, F. (2016). Setting the Scene: Development of the CJEU Jurisprudence on Age Discrimination in Employment. In: Manfredi, S., Vickers, L. (eds) Challenges of Active Ageing. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53251-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation