Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci, [2010] ECR I-365

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Oxford First-Class EU Law Notes

View

PremiumNotes

PQGuide

ModelAnswers

Key Point

Affirmation of the principle in Mangold that a general principle of EU law, if concretised by a directive, can have horizontal direct effect
In contrast to Mangold, this case suggests that for the general principle to take effect the implementation period for the directive must first expire

German Civil Code provided for a reduced notice period for dismissal of younger workers so that work undertaken before 25 would not be accounted for when calculating the period of notice
As a result, Ms K received a notice of about 40 days rather than 4 months
K brought claim against employer, a private company, arguing that she had been discriminated based on age
Preliminary reference was sought on whether the prohibition of non-discrimination on grounds of age in EU law applied

For the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age to apply in the current case, it must fall within the scope of EU law
In contrast to the situation concerned in Case C‑427/06 Bartsch [2008] ECR I‑7245, the allegedly discriminatory conduct adopted in the present case on the basis of the national legislation at issue occurred after the expiry of the implementation period
On that date, the directive had the effect of bringing within the scope of EU law the national legislation at issue
The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Employment Equality Framework Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC), must be interpreted as precluding the legislation at issue in the proceedings

Get tutored by top graduates from Oxbridge

Từ khóa » C-555/07