Mangold v Helm; Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos — agediscrimination.info

A German law providing older fixed term workers with fewer legal protections than their younger counterparts was unlawful age discrimination. Although the German government had a legitimate aim – the vocational integration of unemployed older people – the way in which it had sought to achieve that aim (by excluding those over a particular age from certain legal protections) was not proportionate.

 Another important aspect of this decision was the ECJ’s ruling that the German government had acted illegally in implementing an age discriminatory law even though the deadline for implementing the age strand of the 2000 EC Anti-discrimination Framework Directive had not yet expired.

Facts

The case revolved around German laws which set restrictions on the length of fixed-term contracts and the number of times they can be renewed. These rules are relaxed where the contract is with a worker who is over a certain age, giving them less job protection. In 2001, German legislators changed the age at which these restrictions were relaxed from 60 to 52 (it will change again to 58 from the end of 2006) at the same time as they implemented the 1999 EC Fixed-term Work Directive into German law.

Decision

The ECJ upheld an argument that this was unlawful as it discriminated against older workers contrary to EU law. At first sight this might not seem that surprising. However, Germany, like the UK, has perfectly legitimately deferred implementation of the age strand of the Anti-discrimination Directive until the end of 2006. The ECJ was unconcerned that Germany had not yet implemented its age discrimination laws nor that the deadline for them to do so had not yet expired.
The German Government sought to argue that its fixed-term contract age limits were, in any event, compatible with the Anti-discrimination Directive. To succeed, it had to show:

• that the limits served to advance a legitimate aim; and
• they were a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The ECJ accepted that Germany’s aim – ‘the vocational integration of unemployed older workers, in so far as they encounter considerable difficulties in finding work’ – was a legitimate ‘public-interest objective’ which was capable of justifying age discrimination.However, the Court was not persuaded that the limits were ‘appropriate and necessary’ as required by the Directive. It was unhappy that the limits applied to all workers over age 52 ‘whether or not they were unemployed before the contract was concluded and whatever the duration of any period of unemployment’. In the Court’s view, this infringed the principle of proportionality (which requires a fair balance to be struck between the advantage to the employer of achieving its legitimate aim and the disadvantage to the employee of the discriminatory treatment).

The case is interesting partly because of the Court’s comments as to the potential for age discrimination to be justified; and partly because of the implication that age discrimination is potentially unlawful in EU member states regardless of the implementation of domestic age laws.