Source: https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/spain-supreme-court-6272017
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 14:32:18+00:00

Document:
Spain / Supreme Court / 627/2017 | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
This judgement is an appeal against the Decision of the High Court of Justice of Madrid 375, of 10 April 2015, on the open-call decision for public employment within the Civil Guard – called by Resolution 160/38043/2014 of the Assistant Secretary of Defence- by virtue of which anyone older than 30 years old was enable to participate. According this Resolution of the Assistant Secretary of Defence, the Spanish Civil Guard, together with the Spanish National Police and the Armed Forces use this requirement to ensure the most efficient public service of security. Nevertheless, the appellant's view is that this decision is unlawful. In particular, the relevant legal norms are the Spanish Constitution (Articles 14 and 23 (2)), the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 21 (1)), the Public Employee Basic Statute (Article 56 (1) c)), Law 62/2003, of 30 December, on fiscal, administrative and social measures (Article 34 (2)), and Law 42/1999, of 25 November, on Spanish Civil Guard Staff Regulations.
The Court did not accept the appeal against Decision 375 of High Court of Justice of Madrid, of 10 April 2015, on the open call decision for public employment in the Spanish Civil Guard because, according to EU Law, it is possible to establish a difference in treatment if there is a justifiable reason. And for this time, there is enough case law to uphold such requisite to enter into the Civil Guard. This is also the case because the High Court of the Basque Country submitted a preliminary question (C-258/13) to the Court of Justice of the EU about the said requisite to enter into the regional Police of the Basque Country.
Regarding Directive 2000/78/CE, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, it is observed that its Article 3 does not apply to the Armed Forces.
From the EU Law perspective, from the judgment referred to on 15 November 2016 (case number 258-13), we cannot conclude an infringement of Article 21.1 of the Charter, nor of Article 34.1 of Act 62/2003 invoked in First Instance and that transposes Directive 2000/78/CE, nor of this Directive.
Then, the appeal writ affirms the judgment infringes Article 21.1 of the Charter, which prohibits all kinds of discrimination, amongst other causes, on the grounds of age. The appellant makes reference to Judgments of 21 March 2011 (appeal no. 629/2009) and of 9 May 2014 (appeal no. 529/2012) and, after broadly explaining the constitutional meaning of equality, states that the Judgment appealed is favourable to an inexcusable inequality.
Likewise, the appellant states that the requirement of not having reached 30 years old in the year of the first stage is a discrimination not covered by Article 21.1 of the Charter. It is also affirmed that, in this case, as ruled in the judgments referred to, an infringement of laws and case law takes place, and that Article 56.1 c) of the Civil Servants Basic Statute allows the law to establish a different maximum age from the one established for retirement.
En cuanto a la alegación de la Directiva 2000/78/CE, relativa al establecimiento de un marco general para la igualdad de trato en el empleo y la ocupación, observa que, conforme a su artículo 3, no es aplicable a las Fuerzas Armadas.
Desde la perspectiva que ofrece el Derecho de la Unión Europea, la citada sentencia de 15 de noviembre de 2016 (asunto 258-13) no permite hablar en este caso de una vulneración del artículo 21.1 de la Carta de los DD.FF, ni del artículo 34.2 de la Ley 62/2003 invocado en la instancia que traspone la Directiva 2000/78/CE ni claro está de esta ultima.
A continuación, el escrito de interposición mantiene que la sentencia infringe el artículo 21.1. de la Carta de los DD.FF de la UE que prohíbe toda discriminación, entre otras causas, por razón de edad. Apela también a las sentencias de 21 de marzo de 2011 (recurso 626/2009) y de 9 de mayo de 2014 (recurso 529/2012) y, después de extenderse sobre el significado constitucional de la igualdad, dice que la resolución impugnada ampara un criterio de desigualdad manifiesta que no encuentra amparo en causa objetivable o razonable.
Asimismo, afirma que la exigencia de no haber cumplido treinta años en el de convocatoria comporta una discriminación no amparada por el artículo 21.1 de la Carta de DD.FF de la UE. Añade que en este caso se da, al igual que en los resueltos por las sentencias citadas, una vulneración de la normativa y de la jurisprudencia y que el artículo 56.1 c) del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público reserva a la ley el establecimiento de una edad máxima distinta de la de jubilación.

References: artículo 3
 artículo 21
 artículo 34
 artículo 21
 resolución 
 artículo 21
 artículo 56