This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CA0250
Joined Cases C-250/09 and C-268/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv (Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — University lecturers — National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age of 65 — Compulsory retirement at the age of 68 — Justification for differences in treatment on grounds of age)
Joined Cases C-250/09 and C-268/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv (Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — University lecturers — National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age of 65 — Compulsory retirement at the age of 68 — Justification for differences in treatment on grounds of age)
Joined Cases C-250/09 and C-268/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv (Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — University lecturers — National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age of 65 — Compulsory retirement at the age of 68 — Justification for differences in treatment on grounds of age)
SL C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.1.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 13/12 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv
(Joined Cases C-250/09 and C-268/09) (1)
(Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - University lecturers - National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age of 65 - Compulsory retirement at the age of 68 - Justification for differences in treatment on grounds of age)
2011/C 13/19
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Rayonen sad Plovdiv
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Vasil Ivanov Georgiev
Defendant: Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National law permitting university professors who have reached the age of 65 to conclude an employment contract only for a fixed duration — National law fixing 68 as the final retirement age for university professors — Justification for differences of treatment on grounds of age
Operative part of the judgment
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 6(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and labour market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.
Since this is a dispute between a public institution and an individual, if national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, the national court must decline to apply that legislation.