６５歳定年制は年齢差別ではない、とECJ判決

３月５日、欧州司法裁判所がまた一つ、年齢差別に関する判決を下しました。今度はイギリスから上がってきた案件です。

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&newform=newform&Submit=Submit&alljur=alljur&jurcdj=jurcdj&jurtpi=jurtpi&jurtfp=jurtfp&alldocrec=alldocrec&docj=docj&docor=docor&docop=docop&docav=docav&docsom=docsom&docinf=docinf&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&radtypeord=on&typeord=ALL&docnodecision=docnodecision&allcommjo=allcommjo&affint=affint&affclose=affclose&numaff=&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=PSOC&mots=&resmax=100

これは、エイジ・コンサーン・イングランドという市民団体がイギリス政府を相手取って訴えた裁判で、イギリスの規則が６５歳定年制を認めているのはEU指令違反だというもの。具体的な事例に基づく訴えではないんですね。

1.      National rules such as those set out in Regulations 3, 7(4) and (5) and 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 fall within the scope of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

2.      Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure which, like Regulation 3 of the Regulations at issue in the main proceedings, does not contain a precise list of the aims justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. However, Article 6(1) offers the option to derogate from that principle only in respect of measures justified by legitimate social policy objectives, such as those related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is consonant with such a legitimate aim and whether the national legislative or regulatory authority could legitimately consider, taking account of the Member States’ discretion in matters of social policy, that the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim.

3.      Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 gives Member States the option to provide, within the context of national law, for certain kinds of differences in treatment on grounds of age if they are ‘objectively and reasonably’ justified by a legitimate aim, such as employment policy, or labour market or vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. It imposes on Member States the burden of establishing to a high standard of proof the legitimacy of the aim relied on as a justification. No particular significance should be attached to the fact that the word ‘reasonably’ used in Article 6(1) of the directive does not appear in Article 2(2)(b) thereof.

これはどういう意味なの？という質問が来そうな曲がりくねった表現ぶりですが、要するに、雇用政策、労働市場、職業訓練に関係する合法的な社会政策目的によって正当化されるのなら６５歳定年も指令違反じゃないよ、といっているわけなので、実質的には政府側が勝訴と読むのが適切でありましょう。

なお、本件の法務官意見段階でのエントリーは

http://eulabourlaw.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2008/09/post-3135.html（イギリス年齢差別規則に関する法務官意見）