EU Database – Age Discrimination
Case Name
Facts
Ruling
Principle
Links
Palacios de la
Villa v
Cortefiel
Servicios SA,
 The relationship between the parties
in the main proceedings is governed
by the Textile Trade Collective
Agreement for the Autonomous
Community of Madrid (‘the collective
agreement’).
 The prohibition on any discrimination
on grounds of age, as implemented by
Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted
as not precluding national legislation,
such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses
contained in collective agreements are
lawful where such clauses provide as
sole requirements that workers must
have reached retirement age, set at 65
by national law, and must have fulfilled
the conditions set out in the social
security legislation for entitlement to a
retirement pension under their
contribution regime, where the
measure, although based on age, is
objectively and reasonably justified in
the context of national law by a
legitimate aim relating to employment
policy and the labor market, and it is
not apparent that the means put in
place to achieve that aim of public
interest are inappropriate and
unnecessary for the purpose.
 National legislation under which the fact
that a worker has reached the retirement
age laid down by the legislation leads to
automatic termination of his employment
contract must be regarded as directly
imposing less favorable treatment for all
workers who have reached that age as
compared with all other persons in the
labor force. Such legislation therefore
establishes a difference in treatment
directly based on age within the meaning
of Article 2 of Directive 2000/78.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.
do?val=457132:cs&l
ang=en&list=457132:
cs,&pos=1&page=1&
nbl=1&pgs=10&hwor
ds=411/05~&checkte
xte=checkbox&visu=
#texte
C-411/05
(Spain)
 Mr. Palacios de la Villa, who was
born on 3/2/40, worked for Cortefiel
from 17/8/81 as organizational
manager.
 By letter of 18/7/05, Cortefiel notified
him of the automatic termination of
his contract of employment on the
ground that he had reached the
compulsory retirement age provided
for in the third paragraph of
Article 19 of the collective
agreement.
 The aim of Spanish legislation providing
for compulsory retirement at age 65 – to
create opportunities for persons seeking
employment – was a legitimate aim of
social policy which, in principle, must be
regarded objectively and reasonably
justifying a difference in treatment on
grounds of age.
R (on the
application of
the National
Council on
Ageing) v
Secretary of
State for
Business,
Enterprise and
Regulatory
Reform,
C-388/07
(UK)
 The National Council on Ageing
(Age Concern England) (‘Age
Concern England’) is a charity
which aims to promote the welfare
of older people. By its action
before the national court, Age
Concern England challenges the
legality of Regulations 3(1), 7(4)
and 30 of the Regulations on the
ground that they do not properly
transpose Directive 2000/78. In
essence, it submits that, by
providing in Regulation 30 for an
exception to the principle of nondiscrimination where the reason
for the dismissal of an employee
aged 65 or over is retirement, the
Regulations infringe Article 6(1) of
Directive 2000/78 and the principle
of proportionality.
 It follows that regulations such as those at
issue in the main proceedings do not establish
a mandatory scheme of automatic retirement.
They lay down the conditions under which an
employer may derogate from the principle
prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age
and dismiss a worker because he has reached
retirement age. As a result, such regulations
may directly affect the length of the
employment relationship between the parties
and, more generally, the pursuit by the worker
concerned of his professional or trade activity.
 Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be
interpreted as meaning that it does not
preclude a national measure which, like
Regulation 3 of the Regulations, does not
contain a precise list of the aims justifying
derogation from the principle prohibiting
discrimination on grounds of age.
 However, Article 6(1) offers the option to
derogate from that principle only in respect of
measures justified by legitimate social policy
objectives, such as those related to
employment policy, the labor market or
vocational training.
 It is for the national court to ascertain whether
the legislation at issue in the main proceedings
is consonant with such a legitimate aim and
whether the national legislative or regulatory
authority could legitimately consider, taking
account of the Member States’ discretion in
matters of social policy, that the means chosen
were appropriate and necessary to achieve
 The scope of the Framework
Employment Equality Directive 2000/78
extends to national rules, such as those
in the Age Discrimination Regulations,
which permits employers to dismiss
employees, aged 65 or over by reasons
of retirement.
 Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 does
not require a member state to draw up,
in their measures of transposition, a
specific list of the differences in
treatment which may be justified by a
legitimate aim. However, Article 6(1)
offers the option to derogate from the
principle of prohibiting discrimination on
grounds of age only in respect of
measures justified by legitimate social
policy objectives, such as those related
to employment policy, the labor market
or vocational training. By their public
interest nature, those legitimate aims
are distinguishable from purely
individual reasons particular to the
employer's situation, such as cost
reduction or improving competitiveness,
although it cannot be ruled out that a
national rule may recognize, in the
pursuit of those legitimate aims, a
certain degree of flexibility for
employers.
 In choosing the means capable of
achieving their social policy objectives,
member states enjoy broad discretion.
However, that discretion cannot have
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Noti
ce.do?val=49026
0:cs&lang=en&list
=490260:cs,&pos
=1&page=1&nbl=
1&pgs=10&hword
s=388/07~&check
texte=checkbox&
visu=#texte
that aim.
 Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 gives Member
States the option to provide, within the context
of national law, for certain kinds of differences
in treatment on grounds of age if they are
‘objectively and reasonably’ justified by a
legitimate aim, such as employment policy, or
labor market or vocational training objectives,
and if the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.
 It imposes on Member States the burden of
establishing to a high standard of proof the
legitimacy of the aim relied on as a
justification. No particular significance should
be attached to the fact that the word
‘reasonably’ used in Article 6(1) of the directive
does not appear in Article 2(2)(b) thereof.
the effect of frustrating the
implementation of the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of age. Mere
generalizations concerning the capacity
of a specific measure to contribute to
employment policy, labor market or
vocational training objectives are not
enough to show that the aim of that
measure is capable of justifying
derogation from that principle and do
not constitute evidence on the basis of
which it could reasonably be
considered that the means chosen are
suitable for achieving that aim. Article
6(1) imposes on member states,
notwithstanding their broad discretion in
matters of social policy, the burden of
establishing to a high standard of proof
the legitimacy of the aim pursued.
Wolf v Stadt
Frankfurt am
Main,
 Mr. Wolf, who was born on
9/12/76, applied for an
intermediate career post in the
fire service.
C-229/08
 By letter of 28/2/07, the City of
Frankfurt am Main told Mr. Wolf
that his application could not be
considered, because he was
older than the age limit of 30
years.
(Germany)
 To examine whether the difference of treatment
based on age in the national legislation at issue in
the main proceedings is justified, it must be
ascertained whether physical fitness is a
characteristic related to age and whether it
constitutes a genuine and determining occupational
requirement for the occupational activities in
question or for carrying them out, provided that the
objective pursued by the legislation is legitimate and
the requirement is proportionate.
 As regards, first, the objective pursued by that
national legislation, the German Government’s
statements show that the aim pursued is to
guarantee the operational capacity and proper
functioning of the professional fire service.
 The genuine and determining occupational
requirement for the activities of the fire
service or for carrying them out, it follows
from the uncontradicted information
provided by the German Government, that
persons in the intermediate career of the
fire service perform tasks of professional
firefighters on the ground.
 The question whether national legislation
such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which sets at 30 years the
maximum recruitment age for officials
having the high physical capacity to carry
on an occupation in the intermediate
career in the fire service, is proportionate,
it must be examined whether that limit is
appropriate for achieving the objective
pursued and does not go beyond what is
necessary to achieve it.
 To ensure the efficient functioning of the
intermediate career in the fire service, it
may be considered necessary for the
majority of officials in that career to be able
to perform physically demanding tasks,
and hence for them to be younger than 45
or 50.
 Article 4(1) of the Directive must be
interpreted as not precluding national
legislation, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which sets the
maximum age for recruitment to
intermediate career posts in the fire
service at 30 years.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/
Notice.do?val=
506392:cs&lan
g=en&list=5094
73:cs,506392:c
s,&pos=2&pag
e=1&nbl=2&pg
s=10&hwords=
229/08~&check
texte=checkbox
&visu=#texte
Petersen v
Berufungauss
chuss fur
Zahnarzte fur
Den Bezirk
WestfalenLippe,
C-341/08
(Germany)
 Ms. Petersen, who was born on
24 April 1939, reached the age
of 68 in 2007. She was admitted
to practice as a panel dentist
from 1 April 1974.
 By decision of 25/4/07, the
Zulassungsausschuss für
Zahnärzte für den Bezirk
Westfalen-Lippe (Admissions
board for dentists for the district
of Westphalia and Lippe) found
that Ms Petersen’s authorization
to provide panel dental care
would expire on 30/6/07.
 Article 2(5) of the Directive must be interpreted as
precluding a national measure, such as that at issue
in the main proceedings, setting a maximum age for
practicing as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years,
where the sole aim of that measure is to protect the
health of patients against the decline in performance
of those dentists after that age, since that age limit
does not apply to non-panel dentists.
 Article 6(1) of the Directive must be interpreted as
not precluding such a measure where its aim is to
share out employment opportunities among the
generations in the profession of panel dentist, if,
taking into account the situation in the labor market
concerned, the measure is appropriate and
necessary for achieving that aim.
 It is for the national court to identify the
aim pursued by the measure laying down
that age limit, by ascertaining the reason
for maintaining the measure.
 if legislation such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, having regard to its
objective, were contrary to the Directive, it
would be for the national court hearing a
dispute between an individual and an
administrative body such as the
Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den
Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe to decline to apply
that legislation, even if it were prior to the
Directive and national law made no
provision for disapplying it.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/
Notice.do?val=
506393:cs&lan
g=en&list=5190
00:cs,506393:c
s,&pos=2&pag
e=1&nbl=2&pg
s=10&hwords=
341/08~&check
texte=checkbox
&visu=#texte
Kucudeveci
v Swedex
GmbH,
 Ms. Kücükdeveci was born on
12/2/78. She was employed from
4/6/96, in other words from the
age of 18, by Swedex.
C-555/07
 Swedex dismissed her by letter of
19/12/06 with effect, taking
account of the statutory notice
period, from 31 January 2007. The
employer calculated the notice
period as if the employee had
three years’ length of service,
although she had been in its
employment for 10 years
(Germany)
 European Union law, more
particularly the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of age as
given expression by Directive
2000/78, must be interpreted as
precluding national legislation, such
as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which provides that
periods of employment completed by
an employee before reaching the
age of 25 are not taken into account
in calculating the notice period for
dismissal.
 The national court, hearing proceedings
between individuals, to ensure that the
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of
age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78,
is complied with, disapplying if need be any
contrary provision of national legislation,
independently of whether it makes use of its
entitlement, in the cases referred to in the
second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask
the Court for a preliminary ruling on the
interpretation of that principle.
In all of the cases summarized above, The ECJ ruled that costs are not recoverable.
Conducted & Edited by: Arwa Rinawi, Adv.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notic
e.do?val=506696:c
s&lang=en&list=50
9532:cs,506696:cs,
&pos=2&page=1&n
bl=2&pgs=10&hwor
ds=555/07~&checkt
exte=checkbox&vis
u=#texte