EUobserver / EU court accepts forced retirement due to age
The European Court issued its opinion after considering a case first brought before the British High Court by Age Concern England, a charity working for the well-being of older people, which argued that a British law allowing an employer to sack somebody because they reached the legal age of retirement - 65 years - was discriminatory. "National legislation may provide, in a general manner, that this kind of difference of treatment on grounds of age is justified if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate social policy objective related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training," the ECJ ruled. It said that "by their public interest nature," certain social policy objectives are "legitimate" and "distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer's situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness." The ECJ left it to the UK courts, however, to decide whether the UK legislation "reflects such a legitimate aim and ... whether the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve it."
The European Court issued its opinion after considering a case first brought before the British High Court by Age Concern England, a charity working for the well-being of older people, which argued that a British law allowing an employer to sack somebody because they reached the legal age of retirement - 65 years - was discriminatory.
"National legislation may provide, in a general manner, that this kind of difference of treatment on grounds of age is justified if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate social policy objective related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training," the ECJ ruled.
It said that "by their public interest nature," certain social policy objectives are "legitimate" and "distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer's situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness."
The ECJ left it to the UK courts, however, to decide whether the UK legislation "reflects such a legitimate aim and ... whether the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve it."
Age Concern saw the positives:
We're fighting on to scrap forced retirement say Age Concern and Help the Aged (05.03.09) | Age Concern England
European judges confirmed this morning that the UK government has to overcome a high hurdle to justify forced retirement and so will struggle to show that its national default retirement age of 65 satisfies European Union age discrimination rules when the case returns to the British courts. Age Concern and Help the Aged have called on the UK Government to scrap the default retirement age immediately, by-passing the need to return the case to the High Court which would cause further delay to the right to work past 65 being clarified in law. ... The ECJ addressed the issue of mandatory retirement in the Spanish case of Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA in 2007. In that case, which concerned mandatory retirement ages in collective agreements, the ECJ decided that the Spanish law could be justified. There were a number of significant differences between the facts and context of the Spanish and UK cases which meant that the outcome of the Age Concern case could not be predicted as a result of that decision. However, the questions on national retirement ages and the scope of the Directive that were referred to the ECJ in the Age Concern case (Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) above) were answered by the ECJ in the Palacios case In Age Concern's favour. It was decided that laws allowing mandatory retirement do fall within the scope of the Directive, and that any such law must therefore meet the justification test.
European judges confirmed this morning that the UK government has to overcome a high hurdle to justify forced retirement and so will struggle to show that its national default retirement age of 65 satisfies European Union age discrimination rules when the case returns to the British courts.
Age Concern and Help the Aged have called on the UK Government to scrap the default retirement age immediately, by-passing the need to return the case to the High Court which would cause further delay to the right to work past 65 being clarified in law.
...
The ECJ addressed the issue of mandatory retirement in the Spanish case of Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA in 2007. In that case, which concerned mandatory retirement ages in collective agreements, the ECJ decided that the Spanish law could be justified. There were a number of significant differences between the facts and context of the Spanish and UK cases which meant that the outcome of the Age Concern case could not be predicted as a result of that decision. However, the questions on national retirement ages and the scope of the Directive that were referred to the ECJ in the Age Concern case (Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) above) were answered by the ECJ in the Palacios case In Age Concern's favour. It was decided that laws allowing mandatory retirement do fall within the scope of the Directive, and that any such law must therefore meet the justification test.
