Article 21 - Non-discrimination
Key facts of the case:
During the labour dispute and in the constitutional lawsuit, the applicant pointed out that as a worker older than sixty-three years and six months, he was put in a disadvantageous position compared to younger workers. The applicant claimed that he, unlike younger workers, did not have a choice between cancelling the employment contract with a severance pay in to the amount of 60% of the gross average monthly salary earned for the last three months before the termination of the employment contract, and for each completed year of continuous employment with the employer on the one hand, and business-related termination of the employment contract with the offer of a new amended employment contract on the other hand. With the objections highlighted in the constitutional complaint, the applicant basically points out that with regard to the right to choose maintenance under new conditions of employment or termination of employment and in connection with this, the use of the right to severance pay, he was put in a less favourable position than other persons in a comparable situation due to his age. Therefore, the Constitutional Court assesses that these objections raise the issue of violation of the general prohibition of discrimination prescribed by Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, in connection with the right to work and freedom of work guaranteed by Article 54 by paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The applicant claims that with regard to the right to choose maintenance of employment under new conditions or termination of employment and in connection with this, the use of the right to severance pay, he was put in a less favorable position than other persons in a comparable situation due to his age. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had to assess whether these objections raise the issue of violation of the general prohibition of discrimination prescribed by Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, in connection with the right to work and freedom of work guaranteed by Article 54 by paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court assesses that by prohibiting the employer from cancelling the employment contract for business-related reasons for workers older than sixty-three years and six months from Article 122 of the Collective Agreement, it seeks to achieve a legitimate goal, i.e. the preservation of the labour law status of these workers, considering that they, in terms of the possibility of new employment, in a less favourable situation compared to other workers. The Constitutional Court reminds that for the conclusion of whether or not a certain action constitutes discrimination, it is not only relevant whether such action has a legitimate goal, but it is also necessary to determine whether, in such action, there is a reasonable proportionality between the means used, on the one hand, and the legitimate goal pursued with this means he wants to achieve on the other hand. Therefore, in the specific case, it was necessary to examine whether the protection of older workers could even be achieved by such a ban, and whether there was some measure that would achieve the same goal, and which would be less burdensome for workers like the applicant. The Constitutional Court cannot guess which option would be more favourable for the applicant, but what is certain is that the applicant, unlike younger workers, did not have a choice between two options, both of which protect the worker in the event of the need to cancel the employment contract for business-related reasons. Therefore, the conclusion that the different and unfavourable treatment towards the applicant had an objective and reasonable justification cannot be accepted, that is, that there was no milder measure for the applicant that wouldno milder measure for the applicant would achieve the same goal, i.e. the protection of older workers. As a result of all of the above, the Constitutional Court determines that the contested second-instance judgment and the judgment of the Supreme Court violated the general prohibition of discrimination prescribed by Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention in connection with the exercise of the right to work and freedom of work guaranteed by Article 54, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
19. Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("Official Journal of the European Union" No C83 of March 30, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the EU Charter), containing the general principle of non-discrimination based on age, reads:
"Article 21. Non-discrimination
Any discrimination based on gender, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation is prohibited. 2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited." Regarding the link between Article 21 of the EU Charter and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of November 27, 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.; hereinafter referred to as Directive 2000/78) - transposed into the legal order of the Republic of Croatia by the laws mentioned in points 24 and 25 of the reasoning of this decision, the European Court of Justice, in the Grand Chamber judgment of November 25, 2015, in the case Dansk Industri (DI) v successor Karsten Eigil Rasmussen, C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278, para. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, where the preliminary ruling request arose from a dispute between individuals, and the issue was the direct effect of the provisions of the directive and the application of the principle of non-discrimination based on age as a general principle of EU law, stated the following legal position:
"22 In order to answer that question, it must first be recalled that the general principle of non-discrimination based on age, which concretizes Directive 2000/78, arises, as is apparent from recitals 1 and 4 of that directive, from various international instruments and constitutional traditions common to the Member States (see judgments Mangold, C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709, para. 74, and Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21, para. 20 and 21.). From the case law of the Court, it also follows that that principle, now contained in Article 21 of the Charter of the European Union on Fundamental Rights, must be considered a general principle of Union law (see judgments Mangold, C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709, para. 75, and Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21, para. 21.)
…
Regarding the justification of different treatment of older workers under Directive 2000/78, the European Court of Justice, in the Grand Chamber judgment of May 6, 2010, Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark v Region Syddanmark, C-499/08, EU:C:2010:600, para. 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 46, 47, and 48, stated the following positions: "3 Recital 25 of the preamble to Directive 2000/78 states: 'The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the objectives set out in the guidelines for employment, as well as encouraging diversity in the workforce. However, in certain circumstances, differences in treatment related to age may be justified, and therefore specific rules may be needed that may vary depending on the situation in each Member State. It is important to distinguish justified different treatment, especially that based on justified objectives of employment, labour market, and training policies, from discrimination that should be prohibited.' (...)...."
19. Članak 21. Povelje o temeljnim pravima Europske unije ("Službeni list Europske unije" broj C83 od 30. ožujka 2010.; u daljnjem tekstu: Povelja EU-a), u kojem je sadržano opće načelo nediskriminacije na temelju dobi, glasi: "Članak 21. Nediskriminacija Zabranjuje se bilo kakva diskriminacija na temelju spola, rase, boje kože, etničkog ili socijalnog podrijetla, genetskih osobina, jezika, vjere ili uvjerenja, političkoga ili bilo kakvoga drugog mišljenja, pripadnosti nacionalnoj manjini, imovine, rođenja, invalidnosti, dobi ili spolnog usmjerenja. 2. Unutar područja primjene Ugovora i ne dovodeći u pitanje bilo koju njihovu posebnu odredbu, zabranjena je svaka diskriminacija na temelju državljanstva." U pogledu poveznice između članka 21. Povelje EU-a i Direktive Vijeća 2000/78/EZ od 27. studenoga 2000. o uspostavi okvira za jednak tretman na području zapošljavanja i odabira zvanja (SL L 303 od 2.12.2000.; u daljnjem tekstu: Direktiva 2000/78) - preuzete u pravni poredak Republike Hrvatske zakonima navedenim u točkama 24. i 25. obrazloženja ove odluke, Sud Europske unije, u presudi velikog vijeća od 25. studenoga 2015., Dansk Industri (DI) protiv nasljednika Karstena Eigila Rasmussena, C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278, t. 22., 23., 24., 25., 26. i 27., u kojem je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku upućen iz spora između pojedinaca te se postavilo pitanje izravnog učinka odredaba direktive odnosno primjene načela nediskriminacije na temelju dobi kao općeg načela prava Europske unije, iznio je sljedeće pravno stajalište: "22 Kako bi se odgovorilo na to pitanje, najprije valja podsjetiti da opće načelo nediskriminacije na temelju dobi, koje konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78, proizlazi, kao što je vidljivo iz uvodnih izjava 1. i 4. te direktive, iz različitih međunarodnih instrumenata i ustavnih tradicija zajedničkih državama članicama (vidjeti presude Mangold, C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709, t. 74. i Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21, t. 20. i 21.). Iz sudske prakse Suda također proizlazi da navedeno načelo, sada sadržano u članku 21. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima, treba smatrati općim načelom prava Unije (vidjeti presude Mangold, C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709, t. 75. i Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21, t. 21.)
U pogledu opravdanosti različitog postupanja prema starijim radnicima u smislu Direktive 2000/78, Sud Europske unije u presudi velikog vijeća od 6. svibnja 2010., Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark protiv Region Syddanmark, C-499/08, EU:C:2010:600, t. 3., 24., 25., 26., 27., 32., 34., 35., 36., 40., 41., 46., 47. i 48., iznio je sljedeća stajališta: "3 Stavak 25. uvodne izjave Direktive 2000/78 navodi: 'Zabrana diskriminacije na temelju dobi predstavlja bitan dio ispunjavanja ciljeva navedenih u smjernicama za zapošljavanje, kao i poticanja raznolikosti radne snage. Međutim, u određenim okolnostima, razlike u postupanju povezane sa starosnom dobi mogu se opravdati te su stoga potrebni posebni propisi koji se mogu razlikovati ovisno o stanju u pojedinoj državi članici. Stoga je važno razlikovati opravdano različito postupanje, posebice ono koje se temelji na opravdanim ciljevima politike zapošljavanja, tržišta rada i usavršavanja, od diskriminacije koju treba zabraniti.' (...)....
