CJEU Case C-408/23 / Judgment

Rechtsanwältin und Notarin v Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
17/10/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2024:901
  • CJEU Case C-408/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case: 

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Upper age limit of 60 years for first appointment to the position of lawyer commissioned as notary – Vacant positions due to a lack of younger candidates – Justification – Appropriateness and necessity 

    Outcome of the case: 

    On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to a position of lawyer commissioned as notary, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate employment and labour market policy objective and that, in the relevant legislative context and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of that objective.

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    20.By its first and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to the position of lawyer commissioned as notary.

    21. As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind, first, that the prohibition of discrimination based on, inter alia, age is enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter and that that prohibition was given specific expression by Directive 2000/78 in the field of employment and occupation (judgment of 3 June 2021, Ministero della Giustizia (Notaries), C‑914/19, EU:C:2021:430, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). Accordingly, it must be ascertained whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78.

    ...

    45. In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and fourth questions is that Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to a position of lawyer commissioned as notary, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate employment and labour market policy objective and that, in the relevant legislative context and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of that objective.

    46. By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to a position of lawyer commissioned as notary, including in the situation in which it is found that, for several consecutive years, positions for lawyers commissioned as notaries have not been filled because of a lack of candidates, in respect of such positions advertised in the local court district concerned or in the district of other courts, who satisfy the upper age condition for admission to the profession of notary.

    ...

    48. There is nothing in the file before the Court to show that the case in the main proceedings actually falls within a factual framework such as that described by the referring court in its second and third questions. Those questions are based on a hypothesis which, according to the referring court, could materialise in the future, but the materialisation of which is not certain. Furthermore, the order for reference does not contain any evidence to suggest that a situation such as that envisaged in those two questions has already arisen in the past.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)