Age discrimination and maximum commencement ages
Mario Vital Pérez, C-416/13, 13 November 2014
Facts:
Mr Vital Pérez initiated an action before the court against the decision of one of the local Spanish authorities which specified a requirement of a maximum age of 30 for candidates applying to the local police. Mr Pérez claimed that the age requirement violates the fundamental right of access to public office on equal terms affirmed in the Spanish Constitution and in Directive 2000/78. The local authority which formulated the requirement claimed that the age factor can be deemed as lawful in the light of, inter alia, the Wolf judgment.
Findings of the court:
The Court reiterated that the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EU law. Also it was underlined that according to Art. 3(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC prohibition of age discrimination applies to all persons (as regards both the public and private sectors) including public bodies in relation to, inter alia, conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy. The Court found that the case of setting a maximum age for recruitment definitely falls within the scope of the Directive. The Court also analysed the maximum age requirement in question in the light of the Articles 4(1) – genuine occupational requirements and 6(1) - justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age. The Court evoked its previous judgments in this area and stated that the necessary condition to justify differential treatment on the grounds of age is proportionality. In the case in question, when compared to the Wolf case, not all duties that are attached to the police service require ‘exceptionally high physical capacities’. That is why it can not be justified as a permitted exception. When it comes to the exception laid down by the Art. 6 (1) the Court declared that the age limit for recruitment does not constitute a means which is appropriate and necessary in the light of the objective of the Directive.
Implications:
The Court confirmed that the Directive allows for the exceptions from the principle of equal treatment on the grounds of age. However, the conditions of lawfulness of derogation from the principle of non-discrimination must be interpreted strictly. The Court also highlighted that when using the exceptions laid down by the Directive the principle of proportionality must be borne in mind.