• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Age discrimination and the Swedish ’67-year rule’

30th October 2012/in News /by Nicola Brown

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has examined the Swedish ’67-year rule’ in the case of Hornfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB (2012). The rule means employees in Sweden have the right to work until 67. However, at the end of the month in which an employee turns 67, an employer is permitted to terminate the employment by giving one month’s notice. This was challenged as unlawful age discrimination by an employee in the Swedish Postal Service who was dismissed under this rule.

The Swedish District Court accepted that the rule meant that employees were treated differently on the grounds of age and therefore, it would need to be objectively justified in accordance with national law which implemented the EU law on equal treatment. Objective justification means that it must be shown that there is a legitimate aim for the rule, that the rule is reasonably necessary to achieve that aim and it is proportionate i.e. there are no less discriminatory means available. The District Court referred some questions to the CJEU about the legitimacy of the rule.

The Swedish Government submitted a number of ‘legitimate aims’ to the CJEU, including:

  • Avoiding termination of employment in humiliating circumstances by virtue of an employee’s age;
  • Enabling retirement pensions to be calculated based on the full course of a career with a definitive end date;
  • Reducing obstacles for those wishing to work beyond 65 (which was the previous Swedish retirement age);
  • Adapting to changes in the population and the risk of labour shortages;
  • Establishing a right for individuals to work until 67; and
  • Making it easier for young people to enter the labour market.

The CJEU felt that the rule was objectively justified and proportionate to the aims submitted. The CJEU particularly cited the fact that the rule did not impose automatic retirement at 67 as there was nothing to prevent an employer offering further fixed-term work. It also did not cause hardship to employees who could still claim pension from the age of 65.

The CJEU is yet to find any national retirement to be contrary to EU law. This is interesting since the UK abolished the default retirement age of 65 in April 2011. For employers in the UK who wish to impose a retirement age, they must be able to evidence the aims of the retirement age, justify the age chosen and provide evidence as to why a less discriminatory scheme would not achieve the same aims. Employers should note that the UK Courts and Tribunals have proven to be much stricter on the application of objective justification then the CJEU, which makes it more difficult for an employer to force an employee to retire (please see our article on the UK case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (2012) here).

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team on 01243 836840 or [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2012-10-30 11:55:202014-12-03 15:49:08Age discrimination and the Swedish ’67-year rule’

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • What to expect during 2021 – employment law developments 21st January 2021
  • Did “office banter” about an employee’s memory amount to age discrimination? 21st January 2021
  • Update on Furlough 20th January 2021
  • Restricting Restrictive Covenants? 20th January 2021
  • Q&A: What to expect from a remote Tribunal hearing 20th January 2021
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only