CELEX: C2007/283/16
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-388/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 August 2007 — The Queen on the application of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England), v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

24.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/9
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 August 2007 — The Queen on the application of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England), v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   (Case C-388/07)
   (2007/C 283/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England)
   
      Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   Questions referred
   In relation to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’):
   1.   National retirement ages and the scope of the Directive
   
               (i)
            
            
               Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over by reason of retirement?
            
         
               (ii)
            
            
               Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over by reason of retirement where they were introduced after the Directive was made?
            
         
               (iii)
            
            
               In the light of the answers to (i) and (ii) above
               
                           (1)
                        
                        
                           were section 109 and/or 156 of the 1996 Act, and/or
                        
                     
                           (2)
                        
                        
                           are Regulations 30 and 7, when read with Schedules 8 and 6 to the Regulations, national provisions laying down retirement ages within the meaning of Recital 14?
                        
                     
         2.   The definition of direct age discrimination: justification defence
   
               iv)
            
            
               Does Article 6(1) of the Directive permit Member States to introduce legislation providing that a difference of treatment on grounds of age does not constitute discrimination if it is determined to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or does Article 6(1) require Member States to define the kinds of differences of treatment which may be so justified, by a list or other measure which is similar in form and content to Article 6(1)?
            
         3.   The test for the justification of direct and indirect discrimination
   
               (v)
            
            
               Is there any, and if so what, significant practical difference between the test for justification set out in Article 2(2) of the Directive in relation to indirect discrimination, and the test for justification set out in relation to direct age discrimination at Article 6(1) of the Directive?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 303, p. 16.