''Mangold v Helm'' (2005
C-144/04
was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.E McGaughey, ''A Casebook on Labour Law'' (Hart 2019) ch 15, 657

Facts

Mangold was a 56-year-old

German German(s) may refer to: * Germany (of or related to) ** Germania (historical use) * Germans, citizens of Germany, people of German ancestry, or native speakers of the German language ** For citizens of Germany, see also German nationality law **Ge ...

man employed on a fixed term contract in a permanent

full-time job A full-time job is employment in which workers work a minimum number of hours defined as such by their employer. Overview Full-time employment often comes with benefits that are not typically offered to part-time, temporary, or flexible worker ...

. The German government introduced the so-called Employment Promotion Act 1996 (german: Beschäftigungsförderungsgesetz) which allowed fixed term contracts for a two-year maximum, and otherwise were unlawful unless they could be objectively justified. But even this protection was removed (apparently to "promote employment") if the employee was over 60. Further amendments then changed the age to 52. Mr Mangold claimed that the lack of protection, over age 52, was unjustified age discrimination.

Judgment

The ECJ held in its judgment the German law contravened the

Employment Equality Framework Directive The Equality Framework Directive''2000/78/ECis an EU Directive, and a major part of EU labour law which aims to combat discrimination on grounds of disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age in the workplace. It accompanies the ...

, even though it did not have to be implemented until the end of 2006. It said that, in general terms, legislation that lets employers treat people differently because of their age “offends the principle” in international law of eliminating discrimination on the basis of age. The ECJ ruled that national courts must set aside any provision of national law which conflicts with the directive even before the period for implementation has expired.

Significance

Because it recognised that equal treatment is a general principle of EU law, ''Mangold v Helm'' is significant for three critical reasons. First, it means that a claim for equal treatment is available for private citizens on a horizontal situation. It is not necessary to wait for a Directive to be implemented before making a claim to have caused discrimination. Second, it means that member state and EU legislation, like Directives, may be challenged on the ground that they fail to comply with the general principle of equal treatment. Third, because the court did not limit its remarks to the particular grounds of discrimination presently found in the equal treatment Directives (on sex, race, and disability, belief, sexual orientation and age) it follows that claims against discrimination on the basis of other characteristics may be possible (such as caste,

education Education is a purposeful activity directed at achieving certain aims, such as transmitting knowledge or fostering skills and character traits. These aims may include the development of understanding, rationality, kindness, and honesty ...

, property or military service). It would be likely to reflect the jurisprudence from the

European Convention on Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by ...

, where Article 14 which lists similar grounds to those already in the EU Directives but also adds "or other status".

Notes

{{Reflist, 2

References

*E McGaughey, ''A Casebook on Labour Law'' (Hart 2019) ch 15, 657 Anti-discrimination law in the European Union European Union labour case law Ageism case law

Facts

Judgment

Significance

See also

Notes

References