Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:508
Date: 2011-07-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – National legislation providing, in relation to a category of permanent civil servants, for their automatic retirement at the age of 65, while allowing them to continue to work until the age of 68 for reasons justified by the interests of the service (Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 6(1)) 2. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – National legislation providing, in relation to a category of permanent civil servants, for their compulsory retirement at the age of 65, while allowing them to continue to work until the age of 68 for reasons justified by the interests of the service (Council Directive 2000/78) 1. Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation does not preclude a law which provides for the compulsory retirement of permanent civil servants, in this instance prosecutors, at the age of 65, while allowing them to continue to work, if it is in the interests of the service that they should do so, until the maximum age of 68, provided that that law has the aim of establishing a balanced age structure in order to encourage the recruitment and promotion of young people, to improve personnel management and thereby to prevent possible disputes concerning employees’ fitness to work beyond a certain age, and that it allows that aim to be achieved by appropriate and necessary means. In order for it to be demonstrated that the measure concerned is appropriate and necessary, the measure must not appear unreasonable in the light of the aim pursued and must be supported by evidence the probative value of which it is for the national court to assess. That evidence may include, inter alia, statistical evidence. (see paras 75, 82-83, operative part 1-2) 2. A national law which provides for the compulsory retirement of permanent civil servants, in this instance prosecutors, when they reach the age of 65 does not lack coherence merely because it allows them to work until the age of 68 in certain cases or also contains provisions intended to restrict retirement before the age of 65, and other legislation of the Member State concerned provides for certain – particularly elected – civil servants to remain in post beyond that age and also the gradual raising of the retirement age from 65 to 67 years. The exception relating to the continued employment of a prosecutor until the age of 68 can mitigate the rigidity of the law and contribute to the proper working of the public service concerned by enabling it to deal with specific situations in which the prosecutor’s departure could be detrimental to the best possible accomplishment of the task conferred on him. Moreover, the mere fact that a certain period of time may elapse between changes made to the law of one Member State or one Land of that Member State and those made in another State or Land for the purpose of raising the age at which a person is entitled to retire on a full pension does not, by itself, mean that the legislation at issue lacks coherence. (see paras 87, 90, 97-98, operative part 3)