header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2009 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Opinion , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

ECJ passes the buck

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll