Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: July 23, 2012
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 9 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The CJEU upheld a recent decision that a retirement age of 67 in Sweden, did not breach the Equal Treatment Directive, and thus was a lawful age for retirement.
The case involved a question of Swedish National Law, which stated that citizens could work up until their 67th Birthday, after which their employment would be terminated. Notice of one month should be given by the employer should they wish to implement this policy.
The employee in question argued that as pensions were based upon the average earnings he had earned over his working career, he would have obtained a higher pension had he been able to continue working. As such the policy had caused him a severe detriment by preventing him from obtaining a lower pension rate. He claimed the policy to be in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive and Age Discrimination
The Court held that there was a difference in treatment, however the question put to them was ‘would such action be objective and reasonably justified as a legitimate means to achieving a policy aim?’ This is currently the question running through the UK system as to what will be deemed to be an acceptable measure in such cases. It is therefore good to hear that the court held the policy to be lawful, as it served as a legitimate means to achieving their labour market policy.