Age discrimination and retirement
Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, 6 November 2012
Facts:
The European Commission started the infringement procedures against Hungary after adopting national legislative provisions relating to the age-limit for compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries at the age of 62. The age limit of 62 was set by the new legislation and lowered the limit from 70 to 62. The Commission raised that the Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/78 and the age criterion can not be justified by legitimate objectives and which, in any event, is not appropriate or necessary. The Commission stated that the contested provisions were contrary to Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 and claimed that the lowering of the age-limit gives rise to a difference in treatment based on age between persons within a given profession. The Commission agreed that Hungary was free to set the age of retirement for those persons. However, it argued that the newly introduced age limits profoundly affect the duration of the working relationship between the parties. Moreover, the new age limits also affect their professional activity, by preventing their future participation in professional life.
Findings of the court:
The Court examined whether the introduction of new age limits is not in breach of Art. 1 of Directive 2000/78, in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) as well as with Art.6 (1). The Court did not find the breach of the principle of legitimacy of objectives of introducing new age limits. However, the Court stated that the newly introduced Hungarian legislation did not reach the condition of necessity and is not appropriate. By implementing new legal provisions on age limits it automatically deprived individuals from the right to work, for which they were not prepared from the very beginning of their professional careers. As the Court said, the provisions abruptly and significantly lowered the age-limit for compulsory retirement, without introducing transitional measures of such a kind as to protect the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned. Also, the Court declared that the new law does not comply with the principle of proportionality and does not guarantee a simple replacement of generations within the legal professions in question.
Implications:
The Court confirmed that the Member States enjoy their margin of freedom when introducing age limits for certain professions in order to actively influence public employment policies. However, the tools used to regulate these policies must not be disproportionate and must take into account interests of those who are affected by the measures undertaken by the State.