Compulsory Retirement as an Instrument to Strengthen Labour Market Opportunities for Young Employment Seekers? An Annotation to the European Court of Justice's Decision C-411/05 – Palacios De La Villa
| Author | Stephan Bredt |
| DOI | 10.1177/138826270801000204 |
| Published date | 01 June 2008 |
| Date | 01 June 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Case Law |
190 Intersentia
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT TO
STRENGTHEN LABOUR MARKET OPPORTUNITIES FOR
YOUNG EMPLOYMENT SEEKERS? AN ANNOTATION
TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE’S
DECISION C411/05 PALACIOS DE LA VILLA
In Palacios de la Villa1, the ECJ justie d a Spanish law pursuant to w hich collective
agreements containing a compulsory retirement clause for employees at the age of
65 are lawful, a s a ‘leg itimate and appropriate’ unequal treatment under Article s. 2
and 6 of Di rective 2000/78. e ECJ did not develop a specic Eu ropean standard
for justications of unequal and disadvantaging treatment of older employees but
referred to t he far-reaching discretiona ry powers of the Member States in thi s issue.
In so doing, the ECJ reduced its protection of the right of non-discri mination and its
control of Member States’ labour m arket legislation t hat had been e stablished by its
decision in Mangold.2 is interpretation of Articles 2 and 6 of Di rective 2000/78 is
problematic in l ight of current economic literature on the eects of early retirement
on the labour market and the fact that the European Employment Strategy requi res
Member States to en hance the lab our marke t par ticipation of older citizens. e
decision is problematic because it reduces t he eect of the European social r ight to
equal treatment for older employees and supports the idea that retirement of older
employees enhances the labour ma rket opportunities of younger job seekers.
e application of the principle of equal treatment to labour market laws and policies
raises two questions. First , under what c onditions is the unequal treatment of older
persons justi ed in order to improve the l abour market conditions of other soc ietal
groups, in par ticular you nger job seekers? Second, how a nd how far do European
fundamental and social rights, such as t he right to non-discrimination, inuence
and determine the Member St ates’ competences in labour market policy? In thi s case
commentary, dierences between the decision in Palacios and the earl ier decision
in Mangold concerning the ju stication of unequa l treatment and the discretionar y
powers of Member St ates are analysed . It also exa mines the interpretat ion of Art. 6,
Par. 1 of Di rective 200 0/78 in Palacios de l a Villa, which creates tensions between
the Europea n social r ight of non-discrim ination due to age and the Member States’
competences in social policy. Finally, it analyses whether the interpretation of the ECJ
1 ECJ Case C -411/05, Palacios de la Vi lla vs. Cor teel Servicios , SA, OJ C 297 of 08 .12. – Palacios de
la Villa.
2 ECJ Case C-144/04, Werner Ma ngold v. Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981 – Mangold.
To continue reading
Request your trial