Another European Retirement Decision

legal updates

Policy to be in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive and Age Discrimination

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.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Extension of Redundancy Protection for Pregnancy and New Parents

Explore the strengthened redundancy protections for new parents with significant amendments to maternity, adoption, and shared parental leave rights, effective from April 2024, ensuring enhanced job security during critical family milestones.

Wages increasing from 1 April 2024

With effect from 1 April 2024, the hourly rates of pay are…

Employment Law: Carer’s Leave

The regulations explicitly safeguard employees from any detriment or dismissal resulting from taking or seeking to take carer’s leave.

Employment Law: Annual Leave Changes

Several significant changes came into force on 1 January 2024 that affect the statutory annual leave and pay entitlements.

The office Christmas party season is here

Where an employee makes comments concerning a person’s body parts or style of dress that are intended to be good-natured but are perceived as offensive…

The criteria for whether a philosophical belief is likely to have protection…

ACAS instructed Corby to remove the posts criticising the Black Lives Matter movement, as some employees had found them offensive.

Update on Rights to Flexible Working Requests

Employers will remain entitled to turn down a request pointing to reasonable grounds as a basis for refusal.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.