Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, judgment of the court (Grand Chamber) of 19 january 2010, not yet reported

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1161-1172

  Thüsing, Gregor ^a   Horler, Sally ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957267372     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Case C-144/04, Mangold, [2005] ECR I-9981.
2. Case C-427/06, Bartsch, [2008] ECR I-7245.
3. For the history of the legislation see Goldschmidt, (1926) RArbBl, 487 et seq.
4. see also the Opinion of A.G. Bot of 7 July 2009 in the present case, paras. 38-40.
5. See in particular the remarks by von Medem, (2009) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, 1072 et seq.
6. See in detail Huster, (1994) JZ, 541-549.
7. Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori, [1994] ECR I-3325.
8. On which see Thüsing, Europäisches Arbeitsrecht (2008), § 1, paras. 29, 33.
9. See in particular the critical remarks in Editorial Comments, 43 CML Rev. (2006), 1-8.
10. Cited in agreement by A.G.s Sharpston and Colomer in Case C-227/04, Lindorfer, [2007] ECR I-6767.
11. Joined Cases C-55/07 & C-56/07, Michaeler and Subito GmbH, [2008] ECR I-3135 respectively.
12. Using colourful language as usual: Dubos, (2006) La semaine juridique, 1295 et seq.
13. For a detailed analysis see Craig, 34 EL Rev. (2009), 349, at 375.
14. Riesenhuber, (2007) European Review of Contract Law, 62 et seq.
15. In support of the decision see Schiek, (2006) Industrial Law Journal, 329, at 335.
16. Tobler, 44 CML Rev. (2007), 1177 et seq.
17. On which see Thüsing, (2008) Recht der Arbeit, 307 et seq.
18. See in particular the Opinion of A.G. Colomer in Michaeler and Subito GmbH, at paras. 21, 22 with reference to the Opinion of A.G. Mázak in Case C-411/05, Palacios de la Villa, [2007] ECR I-8531; "In his opinion in Palacios de la Villa, Advocate General Mázak is harshly critical of the Mangold case law, which he regards as harmful to the Community legal order as a whole. I share the view of the advocate general, since the subsidiary applicability of the principles not only gives rise to a lack of legal certainty but also distorts the nature of the system of sources, converting typical Community acts into merely decorative rules which may be easily replaced by the general principles.".
19. Case C-388/07, Age Concern England, [2009] ECR I-1569.
20. Summary: "Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/ 78... imposes on Member States the burden of establishing to a high standard of proof the legitimacy of the aim relied on as a justification.".
21. See in particular, Case C-443/98, Unilever, [2000] ECR I-7535; Case C-194/94, CIA Security International, [1996] ECR I-2101.
22. Opinion of the A.G., para 66.
23. Most recently see the judgment in Case C-341/05, Laval, [2007] ECR I-11767.
24. This is the general thrust of the Opinions of A.G. Saggio, 16 Dec. 1999 in Joined Cases C-240/98 & 244/98, Océano Grupo, [2000] ECR I-4941; and A.G. Colomer, of 27 April 2004 in Joined Cases C-397/01 & 403/01, Pfeiffer, [2004] ECR I-8835, para 29.
25. Case 114/76, Bela-Mühle, [1977] ECR 1211; Case C-37/89, Weiser, [1990] ECR I-2395.
26. See also Jans, "The effect in national legal systems of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age as a general principle of Community law", 3 LIEI (2007), 53 et seq.
27. Case C-442/00, Rodriguez Caballero, [2002] ECR I-11915: "The national court must set aside national legislation which, in breach of the principle of equality, excludes from the concept of "pay" within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987 claims in respect of 'salarios de tramitación' agreed in a conciliation procedure supervised and approved by a court" -concerning a Spanish provision implementing Directive 80/987/EEC.
28. Case 203/86, Spain v. Council, [1988] ECR 4563, para 25; Case C-15/95, EARL de Kerlast, [1997] ECR I-1961, para 35; Case C-292/97, Karlsson, [2000] ECR I-2737; Rodriguez Caballero. The general principle of equality is referred to as a fundamental principle of Community law in the Case 117/76, Ruckdeschel et. al., [1977] ECR 1753, 1770.
29. Contra, but without giving reasons, Schiek, 329, at 334: "[The ECJ] characterised the prohibition to discriminate on grounds of age as a fundamental right under Community law, thus making it more difficult for Member States to justify different treatment of persons as opposed to different treatment of factual circumstances.".
30. Opinion of the A.G., 22 May 2008 in Bartsch, cited supra note 2, at para 69.
31. Fundamentally, Case 5/88, Wachauf, [1989] ECR 2609.
32. Cf. Weiler in Neuwahl and Rosas (Eds.), The European Union and Human Rights, p. 67.
33. Eeckhout, 33 CML Rev. (2002), 945, at 952.
34. Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law (2006), p. 36, 320 et seq.
35. Case C-260/89, ERT, [1991] ECR I-2925, paras. 43 et seq.
36. Cf. e.g. Case C-60/00, Carpenter, [2002] ECR I-6279.
37. Pernice and Mayer, in Grabitz and Hilf, Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th update (2009), after Art. 6, para 32.
38. Judgment, paras. 24 et seq.
39. See also Prechal, Directives in EC Law, 2nd revised ed. (OUP, 2005) for a comprehensive study of directives.
40. See e.g. Reparsi, (2009) EuZW, 756 incorrectly referring to the decision in Inter-Environnement Wallonie.
41. Preis and Temming, (2008) Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, 1209, at 1212 incorrectly referring to the decision in Cordero Alonso and Velasco Navarro.
42. see also Thüsing, (2009) Zeitschrift für europäisches Sozialund Arbeitsrecht, 26.
43. BSG, decision of 27 April 2005 -B 6 Ka38/04 B, para 12. Leaving the question unanswered BVerfG, 18 Nov. 2008 1 BvL 4/08.
44. C-368/97, Familiapress, [1997] ECR I-3689.
45. Judgments referred to include Case C-71/02, Karner, [2004] ECR I-3025, paras. 48 to 53; Case 804/79, Commission v. United Kingdom, [1981] ECR 1045, paras. 23 to 30; Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 & C-47/96, Molenheide et. al., [1997] ECR I-7281, paras. 45 to 48.
46. Opinion of the A.G. in the present case, para 90.
47. A.G. Kokott, Opinion of 6 May 2010 in Case C-104/09, Roca Álvarez, para 55, case pending.
48. Judgment, para 52 et seq.