75:, BGB §622 (which was enacted in 1926, ) that she received only one month was discriminatory. She should have had four, were it not for the under-25 exception. After the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf referred the question, the government argued the aim was to give employers more flexibility by allowing them to dismiss young workers, who can be expected to be more personally and occupationally mobile. The questions were (1)(a) is an age qualification for provisions on reasonable notice discriminatory (b) are they justified (2) if unjustifiable, can private citizens have a direct right of action against employers?
97:
In paragraphs - the ECJ further held that national courts have a duty to disapply any provision of national legislation contrary to the principle of equal treatment. They should not be compelled to make a reference to the ECJ first. One should note that the EU law can only be applied when there is a
93:
a general principle of equality which permeates all of EU law, to which the
Directive merely gave expression. This is more so because the Charter of Fundamental Rights article 21(1) says the same and that has the same legal value as the treaties under TEU art 6(1). Accordingly, in paragraphs -, it
70:
Ms Kücükdeveci argued that the German service related statutory minimum notice period, because it disregarded employment before the age of 25, was unjustifiably discriminatory against young people. She started work at age 18 for Swedex, and was dismissed in 2006 after ten years service. She argued
94:
was held that the legislation in BGB §622 was discriminatory. There was not a sufficient objective justification for the measure, because although the German government's professed aim of wishing to bolster youth employment was legitimate, its measure was disproportionate.
475:
165:
190:
225:
405:
143:
322:
537:
420:
127:
490:
520:
434:
59:
633:
84:
378:
460:
214:
178:
363:
202:
638:
590:
505:
315:
120:
308:
544:
527:
510:
495:
480:
465:
410:
395:
368:
113:
51:
36:
623:
628:
154:
390:
62:
in all
European Union member states, against discrimination, and in favour of equal treatment.
83:
The
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) held that the legislation was contrary to the
281:
272:
263:
8:
450:
341:
300:
447:
338:
72:
351:
240:
89:
617:
554:
55:
105:
291:
330:
615:
539:Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
316:
121:
422:Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality
323:
309:
128:
114:
522:Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
436:Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2)
476:Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss
135:
85:Employment Equality Framework Directive
616:
379:R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry
491:Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG
461:Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
304:
253:Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG
228:R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment
215:Abrahamsson and Anderson v Fogelqvist
179:Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
109:
47:Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG
19:Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG
364:Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary
331:Sources on justifying discrimination
203:Marschall v Land Nordrhein Westfalen
506:Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
13:
14:
650:
58:case, which held that there is a
191:Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange
87:2000/78/EC, but also following
634:European Union labour case law
583:
570:
1:
600:
7:
101:
78:
10:
655:
639:2010 in the European Union
551:
534:
517:
502:
487:
472:
457:
445:
431:
417:
402:
387:
375:
360:
348:
336:
288:
279:
270:
261:
249:
237:
223:
211:
199:
187:
175:
163:
151:
141:
31:
27:European Court of Justice
23:
18:
608:A Casebook on Labour Law
578:A Casebook on Labour Law
564:
155:Defrenne v Sabena (No 2)
65:
60:general principle of law
391:Sirdar v The Army Board
167:Handels-og KF v Danfoss
610:(Hart 2019) ch 12, 534
580:(Hart 2019) ch 12, 534
98:cross-border issue.
282:Directive 2000/78/EC
273:Directive 2000/43/EC
264:Directive 2006/54/EC
136:EU equality sources
194:(1990) Case 262/88
561:
560:
448:Equality Act 2010
339:Equality Act 2010
298:
297:
73:German Civil Code
43:
42:
646:
624:2010 in case law
595:
594:
587:
581:
574:
540:
523:
437:
423:
352:Etam plc v Rowan
325:
318:
311:
302:
301:
230:
130:
123:
116:
107:
106:
16:
15:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
645:
644:
643:
629:Ageism case law
614:
613:
603:
598:
591:"Case C-555/07"
589:
588:
584:
575:
571:
567:
562:
557:
547:
538:
530:
521:
513:
498:
483:
468:
453:
441:
435:
427:
421:
413:
406:Kreil v Germany
398:
383:
371:
356:
344:
332:
329:
299:
294:
284:
275:
266:
257:
245:
233:
226:
219:
218:(2000) C-407/98
207:
206:(1997) C-409/95
195:
183:
182:(1984) C-170/84
171:
159:
147:
137:
134:
104:
81:
71:that under the
68:
12:
11:
5:
652:
642:
641:
636:
631:
626:
612:
611:
602:
599:
597:
596:
582:
568:
566:
563:
559:
558:
552:
549:
548:
535:
532:
531:
518:
515:
514:
503:
500:
499:
488:
485:
484:
473:
470:
469:
458:
455:
454:
446:
443:
442:
432:
429:
428:
418:
415:
414:
403:
400:
399:
388:
385:
384:
376:
373:
372:
361:
358:
357:
349:
346:
345:
337:
334:
333:
328:
327:
320:
313:
305:
296:
295:
289:
286:
285:
280:
277:
276:
271:
268:
267:
262:
259:
258:
250:
247:
246:
241:Mangold v Helm
238:
235:
234:
224:
221:
220:
212:
209:
208:
200:
197:
196:
188:
185:
184:
176:
173:
172:
164:
161:
160:
152:
149:
148:
142:
139:
138:
133:
132:
125:
118:
110:
103:
100:
90:Mangold v Helm
80:
77:
67:
64:
41:
40:
33:
29:
28:
25:
21:
20:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
651:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
621:
619:
609:
606:E McGaughey,
605:
604:
592:
586:
579:
576:E McGaughey,
573:
569:
556:
555:UK labour law
550:
546:
542:
541:
533:
529:
525:
524:
516:
512:
508:
507:
501:
497:
493:
492:
486:
482:
478:
477:
471:
467:
463:
462:
456:
452:
449:
444:
439:
438:
430:
425:
424:
416:
412:
408:
407:
401:
397:
393:
392:
386:
381:
380:
374:
370:
366:
365:
359:
354:
353:
347:
343:
340:
335:
326:
321:
319:
314:
312:
307:
306:
303:
293:
287:
283:
278:
274:
269:
265:
260:
255:
254:
248:
243:
242:
236:
231:
229:
222:
217:
216:
210:
205:
204:
198:
193:
192:
186:
181:
180:
174:
169:
168:
162:
157:
156:
150:
145:
140:
131:
126:
124:
119:
117:
112:
111:
108:
99:
95:
92:
91:
86:
76:
74:
63:
61:
57:
56:EU labour law
54:is a leading
53:
49:
48:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
17:
607:
585:
577:
572:
536:
519:
504:
489:
474:
459:
433:
419:
404:
389:
377:
362:
350:
252:
251:
239:
227:
213:
201:
189:
177:
166:
153:
96:
88:
82:
69:
46:
45:
44:
39:, IRLR 346
618:Categories
601:References
451:s 19(2)(d)
32:Citations
545:C-256/01
528:C-187/00
511:C-184/89
496:C-171/88
481:C-109/88
466:C-170/84
411:C-285/98
396:C-273/97
382:EWHC 860
369:C-222/84
355:IRLR 150
102:See also
79:Judgment
52:C-555/07
37:C-555/07
543:(2004)
526:(2003)
509:(1991)
494:(1989)
479:(1989)
464:(1984)
440:ICR 320
426:ICR 768
409:(2000)
394:(1999)
367:(1986)
146:art 157
50:(2010)
35:(2010)
292:EU law
256:(2010)
244:(2005)
232:(1999)
170:(1989)
158:(1976)
565:Notes
342:Sch 9
66:Facts
24:Court
553:see
290:See
144:TFEU
620::
593:.
324:e
317:t
310:v
129:e
122:t
115:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.