Will the government blow the whistle on forced retirement? Charles Pigott reports
Back in August 2007 the High Court referred three questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). They were about the interpretation of the Employment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) which the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (2006/1031) implemented. The answers were needed to inform the High Court’s decision on the validity of reg 30, which creates an exemption for compulsory retirement of employees at the age of 65 or over. Heyday (Age Concern) had challenged its validity in judicial review proceedings, arguing that it was not authorised by the Directive.
The first question—which asked whether the exemption even came within the scope of the Directive—was rendered academic by the decision of the ECJ in Palacios de la Villa v Cortefi el Servicios C-411/05 later in 2007. Interest has therefore focused on the answers to the two other questions, which addressed various aspects of the justification defence.
Earlier this month the judgment of the ECJ was released: Age Concern England v Secretary
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
