Case C-411/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Scope — Collective agreement providing for automatic termination of employment relationship where a worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retirement pension — Age discrimination — Justification)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, collective agreement, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, retirement conditions

C 297/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Re:

the market in beef and veal

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68
of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation
of
(OJ, English Special Edition
1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying
down general rules applying to the special premium for beef
producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a
system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992
L 215, p. 49) and Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down
detailed rules for the application of
the premium schemes
provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and repealing Regu-
lations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of
premium schemes in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1996 L 313,
p. 9) — Premium for maintaining suckler cows — Meaning of
‘suckler cow’ and ‘use of rights’ — Repayment of advances
received and reduction of individual ceiling following the refusal
to take into account, for the grant of the premium,
in-calf
heifers, which did not replace suckler cows in respect of which a
premium had been applied for.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common
organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996, must be
interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer may be regarded as a
suckler cow within the meaning of Section 1 of that regulation
only if it replaces, after the premium application for the marketing
year has been lodged, a suckler cow included in that application;

2. An in-calf heifer which, for a marketing year, replaced a suckler
cow in respect of which a premium application was made and
which was accepted as being eligible for that premium may be
regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of point (ii) of the
third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended
by Regulation No 2222/96, where it fulfils, in the following year,
the requirements for replacing a suckler cow again;

3. Point

the
as

amended

third indent of Article 4a of Regulation
(ii) of
No 805/68,
(EC)
No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer
in respect of which a premium application has been made is not
eligible for the premium if it calves before the deadline for lodging
that application;

by Council Regulation

4. Article 33(2)

of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules

and

(4)

for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regu-
lation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82
and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, is to be interpreted as
meaning that a producer must be considered as not having made
use of his premium rights during a marketing year if he has
applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because
the animals concerned were not eligible, and this is also the case if
there is no indication of an improper application having been
made. Such an interpretation is not contrary to the principle of
proportionality;

5. It is for the national court to decide whether, in the light of all the
duly justified circumstances of the situation of the applicant in the
main proceedings, that situation constitutes an exceptional case in
which the derogation provided for
indent of
Article 33(2) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2311/96, falls to be applied, whilst taking account of
the need to apply that provision restrictively;

in the

final

6. Article 33(4) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2311/96, read in conjunction with Article 4f(4) of
Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96,
is to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may, on expiry
of the two-year exclusion period, grant to a producer, on a preferen-
tial basis, the premium rights which were withdrawn from him
because he had made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 %
of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la
Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA

(Case C-411/05) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and
occupation — Scope — Collective agreement providing for
automatic termination of employment relationship where a
worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retire-
ment pension — Age discrimination — Justification)

(2007/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Félix Palacios de la Villa

Defendant: Cortefiel Servicios SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de
Madrid — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) of Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
(OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules transposing the direc-
tive which include a transitional provision whereby compulsory
retirement clauses not justified by employment policy objectives
but contained in collective agreements are deemed valid.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance
France) — Max Rampion,
Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard v Franfinance SA, K
par K SAS

Saintes,

de

(Case C-429/05) (1)

(Directive 87/102/EEC — Consumer credit — Right of the
consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for
non-performance or performance not in accordance with the
contract relating to the goods or services financed by the
credit — Conditions — Indication in the offer of credit of the
goods or service being financed — Credit facility enabling the
credit granted to be used on a number of occasions — Possibi-
lity for the national court to raise of its own motion the right
of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of
credit)

(2007/C 297/10)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of age, as imple-
mented by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment
and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legisla-
tion such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements are
lawful where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers
must have reached retirement age, set at 65 by national law, and must
have fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation for
entitlement to a retirement pension under their contribution regime,
where

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Saintes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard

Defendants: Franfinance SA, K par K SAS

— the measure, although based on age, is objectively and reasonably
justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating
to employment policy and the labour market, and

Re:

— the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do
not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de
Saintes — Interpretation of Articles 11 and 14 of Council
Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxima-
tion of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42,
p. 48) — National legislation making application of the rules on
interdependence between a credit agreement and a sale contract
conditional on an indication being made, in the credit offer, of
the goods being financed — Credit facility arrangement which
does not indicate the goods being financed but is clearly linked
to the contract of sale — Whether possible for the national
courts to raise of their own motion arguments relating to the
regulation of consumer credit.