Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:48:31.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Marlene Schmidt

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 22 November 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgement in a preliminary ruling procedure from the Arbeitsgericht München (Labour Court Munich), answering questions concerning the interpretation of Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and as regards the construction of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Essentially, the Arbeitsgericht wanted to know whether a statutory provision exempting employees of 52 years of age and older from limitations to the conclusion of fixed-term contracts was compatible with Community law.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2006 , pp. 505 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3695 (2005), [hereinafter “Mangold”].Google Scholar

2 Council Directive 99/70, Concerning the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work Concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, 1999 O.J. (L 145) 43; corrected 1999 O.J. (L 244) 64; see Anne Röthel, Europäische Rechtsetzung im sozialen Dialog, Zur Richtlinie 1999/70/EG über befristete Arbeitsverhältnisse, 17 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht [NZA] 65 (2000); Marlene Schmidt, Das Arbeitsrecht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, paras. 384-398 (2001).Google Scholar

3 Council Directive 2000/78, Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, 2000 O.J. (L 303) 16; see Dagmar Schiek, Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinien der EU - Umsetzung im deutschen Arbeitsrecht, 21 NZA 873 (2004); Alexius Leuchten, Der Einfluss der EG-Richtlinien zur Gleichbehandlung auf das deutsche Arbeitsrecht, 19 NZA 1254 (2002).Google Scholar

4 Gas, Tonio, Die unmittelbare Anwendbarkeit von Richtlinien zu Lasten Privater im Urteil “Mangold”, 16 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht [EuZW] 737 (2005); Christoph Herrmann, Die negative unmittelbare Wirkung von Richtlinien in horizontalen Rechtsverhältnissen, 17 EuZW 69; Derk Strybny, Verstoß des § 14 Abs 3 TzBfG gegen das gemeinschaftsrechtliche Diskriminierungsverbot, 60 Betriebsberater [BB] 2753 (2005); Norbert Reich, Zur Frage der Gemeinschaftsrechtswidrigkeit der sachgrundlosen Befristungsmöglichkeit bei Arbeitnehmern ab 52 Jahren, 17 EuZW 21 (2006); Marita Körner, Europäisches Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung in Beschäftigung und Beruf, 22 NZA 1395 (2005); Jubst-Hubertus Bauer & Christian Arnold, Auf Junk folgt Mangold – Europarecht verdrängt deutsches Arbeitsrecht, 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 6 (2006); Folkmar Koenigs, Unbegrenzte Prüfungsbefugnis des EuGH?, 58 Der Betrieb [DB] 49 (2006); Hermann Reichold, Der Fall Mangold: Entdeckung eines europäischen Gleichbehandlungsprinzips?, 5 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Arbeits- und Sozialreht [ZESAR] 55 (2006); Gregor Thüsing, Europarechtlicher Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz als Bindung des Arbeitgebers, 26 Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht und Insolvenzpraxis [ZIP] 2149 (2005); Georg Annuß, Das Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht, 61 BB 325 (2006); Bernd Waas, Europarechtliche Schranken für die Befristung von Arbeitsverträgen mit älteren Arbeitnehmern? - § 14 III TzBfG aus der Sicht des Generalanwalts, 16 EuZW 583 (2005) (commenting the opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, delivered 30 June 2005); Jobst-Hubertus Bauer, Ein Stück aus dem Tollhaus: Altersbefristung und der EuGH, 22 NZA 800 (2005) (commenting the opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, delivered 30 June 2005).Google Scholar

5 As regards the “dialogue” between German labour and the ECJ, see the different contributions in: Labour Law in the Courts, National Judges and the European Court of Justice (Silvana Sciarra ed., 2001).Google Scholar

6 2000 BGBl. I at 1966. See Marlene Schmidt, News of Atypical Work in Germany - Recent developments as to fixed-term contracts, temporary and part-time work, 3 German Law Journal [GLJ] (No. 7, 2002).Google Scholar

7 Council Directive 97/81, Concerning the Framework Agreement on Part-time Work Concluded Between UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, 1998 O.J. (L 14) 9; amended by Council Directive 98/23, 1998 O.J. (L 131) 10.Google Scholar

8 As to the rules of dismissal protection in Germany, see Manfred Weiss & Marlene Schmidt, Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Germany, 3rd ed. (2000), paras. 218-260.Google Scholar

9 Betriebsrätegesetz [BRG - Works Councils’ Act], 4 Feb. 1920, RBGl. at 147 (contained first provisions of general dismissal protection).Google Scholar

10 Fundamentally, see Reicharbeitsgericht [RAG - Reich Labour Court], RAGE 1, 361 (363); confirmed RAGE 7, 93 (96). These decisions, however, dealt with consecutive fixed-term contracts. Contrary to today, the RAG, moreover, required the employer's intention to circumvent dismissal protection. Fundamentally, see GS Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG – Federal Labour Court), dec. of 12. Oct. 1960, AP no. 16 § 620 BGB Befristeter Arbeitsvertrag; more recently, BAG, dec. of 21 Feb. 2001, AP no. 226 § 620 BGB Befristeter Arbeitsvertrag; BAG, dec. of 22 March 2000, AP no. 222 § 620 BGB Befristeter Arbeitsvertrag.Google Scholar

11 1985 BGBl. I at 710.Google Scholar

12 2003 BGBl. I at 3002.Google Scholar

13 Erstes Gesetz über moderne Dienstleistungen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt [First Law on the Modern Services in the Labor Market], 2002 BGBl. I at 14607.Google Scholar

14 The facts of the case also raised questions as regards the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling on the grounds that the dispute between the parties involved was fictitious or contrived. Prior to the conclusion of the employment contract between Mr. Mangold and Mr. Helm, the latter had publicly argued a case identical to Mr. Mangold's, to the effect that sec. 14 para. 3 TzBfG was unlawful. The ECJ nevertheless regarded the order of reference as admissible. See Mangold, supra note 1, at paras. 32-39. For criticism, see Reichold, 5 ZESAR 55 (2006); Bauer, 22 NZA 800 (2005); Strybny, 60 BB 2753 (2005).Google Scholar

15 Council Directive 2000/43, Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Race or Ethnic Origin, 2000 O.J. (L 180) 22. In the event of action taken by the Commission under Article 226 EC against Germany, the ECJ stated - not very surprisingly - that Germany has violated its obligation to implement Directive 2000/43/EC. Case C-329/04, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, European Court of Justice (ECJ), 16 EuZW 444 (2005).Google Scholar

16 Case C-43/05, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, 17 EuZW 216 (2006) (holding that Germany had violated its obligations deriving from Directive 2000/78/EC by not implementing the principle of non-discrimination in respect of religion and belief, disability and sexual orientation into domestic law).Google Scholar

17 See Franz-Jürgen Säcker, “Vernunft statt Freiheit!” - Die Tugendrepublik der neuen Jakobiner, Referentenentwurf eines privatrechtlichen Diskriminierungsgesetzes, 35 ZRP 286 (2002); Klaus Adomeit, Diskriminierung - Inflation eines Begriffs, 55 NJW 1622 (2002).Google Scholar

18 As to the consequences of the ban of age discrimination for German labour law, see Marlene Schmidt, The Need for Modernising German Labour Law Arising From The Ban of Age Discrimination, in Modernisation of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Liber Amicorum for Marco Biagi 353-367 (Roger Blanpain & Manfred Weiss eds., 2003); Marlene Schmidt & Daniela Senne, Das gemeinschaftsrechtliche Verbot der Altersdiskriminierung und seine Bedeutung für das deutsche Arbeitsrecht, 55 RdA 80-89 (2002); Herbert Wiedemann & Gregor Thüsing, Der Schutz älterer Arbeitnehmer und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG, 22 NZA 1234-1242 (2002); Manfred Löwisch & Georg Caspers & Daniela Neumann, Beschäftigung und demographischer Wandel, Beschäftigung älterer Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer als Gegenstand von Arbeits- und Sozialrecht (2003); Wolfgang Zöllner, Altersgrenzen beim Arbeitsverhältnis jetzt und nach Einführung eines Verbots der Altersdiskriminierung, in Gedächtnisschrift für Wolfgang Blomeyer 517-533 (Rüdiger Krause et. al eds., 2003); Eva Kocher, Das europäische Recht zur Altersdiskriminierung – Konsequenzen für das deutsche Arbeitsrecht, 14 Arbeit 305 (2005); fundamentally Daniela Senne, Auswirkungen des Europäischen Verbots der Altersdiskriminierung auf das deutsche Arbeitsrecht (2006).Google Scholar

19 See Council Directive 96/34, On the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave Concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, 1996 O.J. (L 145) 4; amended by Council Directive 97/75, 1997 O.J. (L 10) 4 and Council Directive 97/81, On the Framework Agreement on Part-time Work, supra note 7. The content of Council Directive 1999/70 (supra note 2), has not been developed in the usual law-making procedure between Commission, Parliament, and Council, but, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 138 ss. EC, by the social partners on European level. As regards the latter procedure, see Gabriele Britz & Marlene Schmidt, The Institutionalised Participation of Management and Labour in the Legislative Activities of the European Community: A Challenge to the Principle of Democracy under Community Law, 6 ELJ 45 (2000) (with further proofs).Google Scholar

20 See Waas, 16 EuZW 583 (2005), fns. 13 and 14; doubtfully (and rightly so), see Christof Kerwer, Finger weg von der befristeten Einstellung älterer Arbeitnehmer? 19 NZA 1316, 1317 (2002).Google Scholar

21 Mangold, , supra note 1, at paras. 41-43.Google Scholar

22 A clause of this kind is also to be found in the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, the final recital of which states that “the solemn proclamation of fundamental social rights at European Community level may not, when implemented, provide grounds for any retrogression compared with the situation currently existing in each Member State”. See Advocate General Tizzano, Opinion of 30 June 2005, Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm, para. 54. [hereinafter “AG Opinion – Mangold“].Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 Mangold, , supra note 1, at paras. 44-54.Google Scholar

25 AG Opinion – Mangold, supra note 22, at paras. 60-79; see Waas, 16 EuZW 583, 584 (2005).Google Scholar

26 As regards age discrimination in terms of Directive 2000/78 (supra note 3), see European Commission, Age discrimination and European Law (2005) (with further proofs).Google Scholar

27 Mangold, , supra note 1, at paras. 66-72.Google Scholar

28 Case C-129/95, Inter-Environment Wallonie, 1997 E.C.R. I-7411, para. 45; Case C-106/77, Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629, para. 21; Case C-347/96, Solred, 1998 E.C.R. I-937, para. 30.Google Scholar

29 This fact is overlooked by: Reich, 17 EuZW 21 (2006); Reichold, 5 ZESAR 55, 57 (2006).Google Scholar

30 Council Directive 76/207, On the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women as Regards Access to Employment, Vocational Training and Promotion, and Working Conditions, 1976 O.J. (L 39) 40 (EEC).Google Scholar

31 Case C-149/77, Defrenne III, 1978 E.C.R. 1365, paras. 26-29; Cases 75/82 and 117/82, Razzouk and Beydoun, 1984 E.C.R. 1509, paras. 6-7; Case C-158/91, Levy, 1993 E.C.R. I-4287, para. 16; Case C-13/94, P/S, 1996 E.C.R. I-2143, para. 19; Case C-50/96, Schröder, 2000 E.C.R. I-743, para. 56. See Christopher Docksey, The Principle of Equality Between Women and Men as a Fundamental Right Under Community Law, 20 Industrial Law Journal [ILJ] 258, 260 (1991); Marlene Schmidt, Das Arbeitsrecht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft III. para. 41 (2001),Google Scholar

32 2004 O.J. (C 310) 1.Google Scholar

33 Mangold, , supra note 1, at para. 74.Google Scholar

34 critically, Very, see Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2150 (2005).Google Scholar

35 EC-Commission, Report on Member States’ Legal Provisions to Combat Discrimination 61, 64 (2000).Google Scholar

36 Löwisch, Caspers & Neumann, Beschäftigung und demographischer Wandel 20 (2003).Google Scholar

37 Körner, , 22 NZA 1391, 1397 (2005).Google Scholar

38 See Zuleeg, Manfred, Zum Verhältnis nationaler und europäischer Grundrechte, 27 EuGRZ 511, 514 (2000); Meinhard Hilf, 53 NJW Beilage 5, 6 (2000); Marlene Schmidt, Das Arbeitsrecht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft III. para. 86 (2001).Google Scholar

39 Mangold, , supra note 1, at paras. 83-84. For a critique, see Bauer, 22 NZA 800, 802 (2005).Google Scholar

40 Affirming, , see Körner, 22 NZA 1395, 1397 (2005); Gas, 16 EuZW 737 (2005). Negating, see Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149 (2005) (showing that the general principle of non-discrimination in the past has been used as a yardstick to measure Community secondary law or national law implementing Community law).Google Scholar

41 See Annuß, 61 BB 325 (2006) (The statement, that one cannot conclude anything for a direct horizontal effect of Directive 2000/78/EC is, hence, misleading.).Google Scholar

42 For a critique, see Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149 (2005); Strybny, 60 BB 2753, 2754-5 (2005); Körner, 22 NZA 1395, 1397 (2005); Gas, 16 EuZW 737 (2005); Bauer & Arnold, 59 NJW 6, 10 (2006).Google Scholar

43 See Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2150 (2005). Whether domestic law incompatible with directive provisions has to be set aside even if the directive provisions contain rights and obligations between private parties (so-called negative horizontal direct effect), is highly disputed within the ECJ. See Herrmann, 17 EuZW 69 (2006) (with further proofs).Google Scholar

44 See Reich, 17 EuZW 21 (2006); Kerwer, 19 NZA 1316, 1318 (2002).Google Scholar

45 Rightfully skeptical, Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2150 (2005).Google Scholar

46 Case C-397/01-403/01, 2004 E.C.R. I-0000 (not yet reported).Google Scholar

47 Reichold, , 5 ZESAR 55, 57 (2006).Google Scholar

48 See Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2150 (2005).Google Scholar

49 See Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG – Federal Labour Court) of 26 April 2006, 7 AZR 500/04, press release no. 27/06.Google Scholar

50 Coalition agreement, paras. 1177 seq.Google Scholar

51 See Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2159 (2005); Reichold, 5 ZESAR 55, 57 (2006); Strybny, 60 BB 2753, 2754 (2005).Google Scholar

52 See only the examples discussed in the literature mentioned in fn. 16.Google Scholar

53 See also Annuß, 61 BB 326 (2005).Google Scholar

54 critique, For a, see Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2150 (2005).Google Scholar

55 Positively, see Thüsing, 26 ZIP 2149, 2151 (2005); Strybny, 60 BB 1753, 2754 (2005).Google Scholar

56 See Kerwer, , 19 NZA 1316 (2005).Google Scholar