CELEX: 62010CA0159
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-21 00:00:00
Title: Joined Cases C-159/10 and C-160/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10) v Land Hessen (Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Compulsory retirement of prosecutors on reaching the age of 65 — Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on grounds of age — Coherence of the legislation)

10.9.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10) v Land Hessen
   (Joined Cases C-159/10 and C-160/10) (1)
   
   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Compulsory retirement of prosecutors on reaching the age of 65 - Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on grounds of age - Coherence of the legislation)
   2011/C 269/21
   Language of the cases: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Gerhard Fuchs (C-159/10), Peter Köhler (C-160/10)
   
      Defendant: Land Hessen
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Article 6 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) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National rules providing for automatic retirement of civil servants at 65 — Legitimate objectives justifying differences of treatment on grounds of age
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation does not preclude a law, such as the Law on the civil service of the Land Hessen (Hessisches Beamtengesetz), as amended by the Law of 14 December 2009, 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.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               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.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               A law such as the Law on the civil service of the Land Hessen, as amended by the Law of 14 December 2009, which provides for the compulsory retirement of 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.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.