Cart 0
Login
Northern Ireland
Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB [2012]
Published on: 20/07/2012
Issues Covered:
Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background The Court was asked to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6(1). The complainant in the national proceedings was a postal worker who was forced to retire on the last day of the month that he reached the age of 67. Under Swedish employment law, an employer can terminate an employee's employment contract without dismissal on the last day of the month of the month of their 67thbirthday, unless there was an agreement to the contrary between the employee and the employer. The complainant sought annulment of his termination on the ground that the rule constituted unlawful discrimination based on age, that continuation of his employment contract for two or three years would increase his pension significantly, and that an exception to the rule should be allowed.24The question referred by the Swedish court was whether Article 6(1) was to be interpreted as precluding such a national provision as going beyond what was appropriate and necessary to achieve the aim pursued.Undoubtedly, the 67-year rule constituted a difference in treatment on grounds of age within the meaning of Article 6(1). However, the first sub-paragraph of Article 6(1) states that difference of treatment on such grounds would not constitute discrimination if, within the context of national law, they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and if the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary. The Court decided that the Swedish retirement law was not contrary to the Directive. The law was found to be an appropriate and necessary means of achieving the legitimate aims identified. These aims included: The rule made it possible to reduce the number of obstacles for those who wished to work beyond 65; Avoiding the termination of employment contracts in situations which are humiliating for workers by reason of their advanced age; The rule also makes it easier for young people to enter and/or remain in the labour market; and Increasing the amount of future retirement pension by allowing employees to work after the age of 65 (the age of eligibility to draw the pension).When considering whether the means to achieve these legitimate aims were appropriate and necessary, The Court took into account previously established principles. First, the Court noted that compulsory retirement ages were widely used by many Member States in order to achieve a balance between political, economic, social, demographic and/or budgetary considerations. Second, Member States are granted a broad discretion to find the right balance between the different interests involved. Therefore, the view that a measure such as the 67-year old rule might be appropriate is not unreasonable.Thus, the second sub-paragraph of Article 6(1) had to be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour -market policy and constituted an appropriate and necessary means by which to achieve that aim.http://bit.ly/OdHooC

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 20/07/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →