ECJ 2 June 2016, case C-122/15 (C), Age discrimination

A supplementary tax on retirement income falls outside the scope of Directive 2000/78.

2016/37 More days of leave for employees over 50 is unjustified unequal treatment (GE)

If a collective agreement grants older employees a higher vacation claim solely because of their age, a younger employee is entitled to the same number of days of leave.

ECJ 2 June 2016, case C-122/15 (C), Age discrimination

A supplementary tax on retirement income falls outside the scope of Directive 2000/78.

2016/36 Lower pay for employees under the age of 25 not discriminatory (DK)

The Danish Supreme Court has ruled that a provision in a collective agreement allowing employers to pay reduced allowances for working in the evenings, on nights and at weekends to employees under the age of 25 in full-time education and working no more than 15 hours a week was not in conflict with the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act since it was justified by a legitimate aim.

Case C-174/16. Parental leave and sex discrimination

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on...

ECJ 16 June 2016, case C-159/15 (Lesar), Age discrimination

National law that excludes civil servants’ pre-18 service for pension purposes is not age discriminatory.

2016/36 Lower pay for employees under the age of 25 not discriminatory (DK)

The Danish Supreme Court has ruled that a provision in a collective agreement allowing employers to pay reduced allowances for working in the evenings, on nights and at weekends to employees under the age of 25 in full-time education and working no more than 15 hours a week was not in conflict with the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act since it was justified by a legitimate aim.

Case C-174/16. Parental leave and sex discrimination

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on...

ECJ 16 June 2016, case C-159/15 (Lesar), Age discrimination

National law that excludes civil servants’ pre-18 service for pension purposes is not age discriminatory.

2016/39 Not selecting a candidate for a job on account of her veil was directly discriminatory on grounds of religion (IT)

A staffing agency rejected an application for an advertised job because the applicant refused to remove her hijab. The court of first instance saw no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did. The plaintiff was awarded €500 but had to bear her own legal expenses.