Mangold judgement
Encyclopedia
Mangold v Helm was a case before the European Court of Justice
(ECJ). Mangold was a 54-year-old German
man employed on a fixed term contract in a permanent full-time job. According to German law, fixed term contracts are unlawful unless they can be objectively justified. However, if the employee is over 52, that requirement does not apply.
The ECJ held in its judgment this contravenes the EU Equal Treatment Directive
, even though it does not have to be implemented until the end of 2006. It said that, in general terms, legislation that lets employers treat people differently because of their age “offends the principle” in international law of eliminating discrimination on the basis of age. The ECJ ruled that national courts must set aside any provision of national law which conflicts with the directive even before the period for implementation has expired.
The key implications include:
European Court of Justice
The Court can sit in plenary session, as a Grand Chamber of 13 judges, or in chambers of three or five judges. Plenary sitting are now very rare, and the court mostly sits in chambers of three or five judges...
(ECJ). Mangold was a 54-year-old German
Germany
Germany , officially the Federal Republic of Germany , is a federal parliamentary republic in Europe. The country consists of 16 states while the capital and largest city is Berlin. Germany covers an area of 357,021 km2 and has a largely temperate seasonal climate...
man employed on a fixed term contract in a permanent full-time job. According to German law, fixed term contracts are unlawful unless they can be objectively justified. However, if the employee is over 52, that requirement does not apply.
The ECJ held in its judgment this contravenes the EU Equal Treatment Directive
Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
Since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in 1999, new EU laws, or Directives, have been enacted in the area of anti-discrimination.The Council Directive 2000/78/EC implements the principle of equal treatment in the area of employment, covering disability, religion or belief,...
, even though it does not have to be implemented until the end of 2006. It said that, in general terms, legislation that lets employers treat people differently because of their age “offends the principle” in international law of eliminating discrimination on the basis of age. The ECJ ruled that national courts must set aside any provision of national law which conflicts with the directive even before the period for implementation has expired.
The key implications include:
- It is possible that age discrimination is already illegal and would give rise to a right to claim compensation in the tribunal unless it could be justified.
- The ECJ is likely to maintain a demanding standard in assessing when discriminatory provisions and practices are justified.
- Businesses cannot afford to delay their preparations for age discrimination.
- Employers are advised to tread carefully in the area of compulsory retirement.