Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:58:33.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Note – Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Anja Wiesbrock

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On 19 January 2010 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to rule on the application and scope of the general principle of non-discrimination under Community law. In Kücükdeveci the Court had the opportunity to clarify a number of questions concerning the principle of non-discrimination and the application of Directive 2000/78 that had remained unanswered after the famous Mangold judgment and subsequent case law. The case was particularly apt to clarify the scope of Mangold, as it concerned a similar factual situation, albeit after the implementation period of Directive 2000/78 had expired. Consequently, many issues addressed in that judgment arose anew. The Court had to deal with the relationship between Directive 2000/78 and the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, the possibility of justifying differential treatment on the basis of national social and employment policies, the extent of the doctrine of indirect effect, and the direct horizontal effect of directives.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2010 , pp. 539 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Council Directive 2000/78, 2000 O.J. (L303) 16 (EC).Google Scholar

2 Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 2005 E.C.R. I-9981.Google Scholar

3 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 31–35, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007C0555:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

4 In this context the AG referred to Case C-388/07, The Queen, on the application of The Inc. Trs. of the Nat'l Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v. Sec'y of State for Bus., Enter. & Regulatory Reform, 2009 E.C.R. I-01569, where the Court made a clear distinction between legitimate interests of a public nature and purely individual interests of the employer.Google Scholar

5 Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA, 1978 E.C.R. 629.Google Scholar

6 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 70, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007C0555:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

7 Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 2005 E.C.R. I-9981, para. 76.Google Scholar

8 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 27, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0555:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

9 Id. at para. 29.Google Scholar

10 Id. at para. 41.Google Scholar

11 Id. at para. 45, 47, 51.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 53–55.Google Scholar

13 See Case 152/84, Marshall v. Southampton and S.-W. Hampshire Area Health Auth. (Teaching), 1986 E.C.R. 723, para. 48; Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori v. Srl, 1994 E.C.R. I-3325, para. 20; Case C-192/94, El Corte Inglés SA v. Rivero, 1996 E.C.R. I-1281, para. 16–17; Case C-201/02, The Queen, on the application of Wells v. Sec'y of State for Transp., Local Gov't & Regions, 2004 E.C.R. I-723, para. 56; Joined Cases C-397-403/01, Pfeiffer, et al. v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV, 2004 E.C.R. I-8835, para. 108–09; Case C-80/06, Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi v. Ecorad Srl, 2007 E.C.R. I-4473, para. 20.Google Scholar

14 Case 14/83, von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordhein-Westfalen, 1984 E.C.R. 1891, para. 26.Google Scholar

15 This obligation of national courts was for the first time established in Case 35/76, Simmenthal SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze italiano, 1976 E.C.R. 1871 and confirmed in cases such as Joined Cases C-13/91 and C-113/91, Criminal proceedings against Debus, 1992 E.C.R. I-3617, para. 32; Joined Cases C-397-403/01, Pfeiffer v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV, 2004 E.C.R. I-8835, para. 111–15; Case C-119/05, Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianto v. Lucchini SpA, 2007 E.C.R. I-6199, para. 61; Case C-115/08, Land Oberösterreich v. ČEZ as, para. 138, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0115:EN:HTML; Case C-314/08, Filipiak v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu, para. 81, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0314:EN:HTML; Joined Cases C-378-380/07, Angelidaki v. Organismos Nomarchiakis Autodioikisis Rethymnis, para. 106 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0378:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

16 Case C-106/89, Marleasing SA v. La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA, 1990 E.C.R. I-4135.Google Scholar

17 Marc Amstutz, In-Between Worlds: Marleasing and the Emergence of Interlegality and Legal Reasoning, 11 Eur. L.J. 766, 766 (2005).Google Scholar

18 See generally Peter Oliver and Wulf-Henning Roth, The Internal Market and the Four Freedoms, 41 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 407 (2004).Google Scholar

19 For criticism on Mangold see Antoine Masson and Claire Micheau, The Werner Mangold Case: An Example of Legal Militancy, 13 Eur. Pub. L. 587 (2007); Karl Riesenhuber, Case: ECJ-Mangold, 3 Eur. Rev. Cont. L. 62 (2007); Jobst-Hubertus Bauer and Christian Arnold, Auf Junk folgt Mangold: Europarecht verdrängt Arbeitsrecht, 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 6, 12 (2006).Google Scholar

20 Dagmar Schiek, The ECJ Decision in Mangold: A Further Twist on Effects of Directives and Constitutional Relevance of Community Equality Legislation, 35 Indus. L.J. 329, 337 (2006).Google Scholar

21 Paul Craig & Grainne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials 296 (4th ed. 2007); Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Constitutional Law of the European Union 308 (2002); Norbert Reich, Understanding EU Law 22–23 (2005).Google Scholar

22 Case C-438/05, Int'l Transp. Workers’ Fed'n and Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP and Oü Viking Line Eesti, 2007 E.C.R. I-10779, para. 40 (AG's opinion), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005C0438:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

23 Arthur Hartkamp, De werking van het EG-Verdrag in privaatrechtelijke verhoudingen. Opmerkingen over directe en indirecte horizontale werking van het primaire gemeenschapsrecht 13 (2009).Google Scholar

24 Mirjam de Mol, Zaak C-555/07, European Human Rights Cases (forthcoming 2010).Google Scholar

25 Council Directive 76/207, 1976 O.J. (L39) 40 (EC).Google Scholar

26 Case C-104/09, Roca Álvarez v. Sesa Start España ETT SA, para. 19, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009C0104:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

27 Id. Google Scholar

28 See Case C-167/97, Regina v. Sec'y of State for Employment, ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez, 1999 E.C.R. I-623, para. 71, 74; Case C-187/00, Kutz-Bauer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, 2003 E.C.R. I-2741, para. 55; Case C-77/02, Steinicke v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 2003 E.C.R. I-9027, para. 61–62; Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 2005 E.C.R. I-9981, para. 63; Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa v. Cortefiel Servicios SA, 2007 E.C.R. I-8531, para. 68; Case C-229/08, Wolf v. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, para. 30–39, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0229:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

29 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 38, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0555:EN:HTML; see also Elise Muir, Enhancing the Effects of Community Law on National Employment Policies: The Mangold Case, 31 Eur. L. Rev. 879 (2006).Google Scholar

30 The same tendency of granting broad discretion to Member States in the area of employment policies can be observed in the context of the free movement of persons, as illustrated in the ITC case (Case C-208/05, ITC Innovative Technology Center GmbH v. Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2007 E.C.R. I-181, para. 39).Google Scholar

31 Case C-388/07, The Queen, on the application of The Inc. Trs. of the Nat'l Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v. Sec'y of State for Bus., Enter. & Regulatory Reform, 2009 E.C.R. I-01569, para. 46. For details on this case see Michael Connolly, Forced Retirement, Age Discrimination and the Heyday Case, 38 Indus. L.J. 233 (2009).Google Scholar

32 See, e.g., Case C-438/05, Int'l Transp. Workers’ Fed'n and Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, 2007 E.C.R. I-10779, para. 40; Case C-341/05, Laval und Partneri Ltd. v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, 2007 E.C.R. I-11767 (applying equally a rather wide scope for potentially acceptable legitimate objectives, but a strict proportionality test).Google Scholar

33 Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 2005 E.C.R. I-9981.Google Scholar

34 See Marlene Schmidt, The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment, 7 German L.J. 505, 520 (2006).Google Scholar

35 Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa v. Cortefiel Servicios SA, 2007 E.C.R. I-8531 (Opinion of the Court), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005J0411:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

36 Case C-267/06, Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, 2008 E.C.R. I-1757 (Opinion of the Court), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0267:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

37 Case C-427/06, Bartsch v. Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH, 2008 E.C.R. I-7245.Google Scholar

38 In Palacios de la Villa, Advocate General Mazák criticized the Mangold judgment on the basis of the fact that the Court had inferred a specific principle prohibiting age discrimination from the general principle of equal treatment enshrined in international instruments. In Maruko, Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer submitted that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation must be distinguished from the prohibition of age discrimination, which was classified by the Court as a general principle of Community law. See case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa v. Cortefiel Servicios SA, 2007 E.C.R. I-8531 (AG Opinion), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005C0411:EN:HTML; case C-267/06, Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, 2008 E.C.R. I-1757 (AG Opinion), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006C0267:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

39 Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa v. Cortefiel Servicios SA, 2007 E.C.R. I-8531, para. 77.Google Scholar

40 Roman Herzog and Lüder Gerken, Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 8, 2008.Google Scholar

41 Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, para. 23, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0555:EN:HTML; see also Case C-427/06, Bartsch v. Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH, 2008 E.C.R. I-7245, para. 27.Google Scholar

42 Case C-101/08, Audiolux SA e.a v. Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), para. 63, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0101:EN:HTML; see also, Case C-174/08, NCC Construction Danmark A/S v. Skatteministeriet, para. 42, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0174:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

43 Case C-101/08, Audiolux SA e.a v. Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), para. 84–88 & 94–96, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008C0101:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

44 Id. at para. 74.Google Scholar

45 Case C-550/07, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v. Commission, para. 93–96, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007C0550:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

46 Case C-427/06, Bartsch v. Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH, 2008 E.C.R. I-7245, para. 60 (AG Opinion), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0427:EN:HTML.Google Scholar