Taking age equality seriously : the example of mandatory retirement : a comparative legal analysis between Norway and Germany in light of Council Directive 2000/78/EC / Melanie Regine Hack, Ph.D.
2016
KJC2942 .H33 2016 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Taking age equality seriously : the example of mandatory retirement : a comparative legal analysis between Norway and Germany in light of Council Directive 2000/78/EC / Melanie Regine Hack, Ph.D.
Published
Baden-Baden, Germany : Nomos, 2016.
Call Number
KJC2942 .H33 2016
Edition
1. edition.
ISBN
9783848730599 (pbk.)
3848730596 (pbk.)
9783845272078 (ePDF)
3848730596 (pbk.)
9783845272078 (ePDF)
Description
423 pages ; 23 cm.
System Control No.
(OCoLC)974650820
Note
Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--University of Oslo, 2016.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 401-423).
Series
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
19
Part I
27
1.
Introduction
27
1.1.
Taking age equality seriously: The thesis in a nutshell
27
1.2.
Themes and issues
31
1.2.1.
Challenges of an ageing society
31
1.2.2.
Key objective of the research: Provisions on mandatory retirement
35
1.2.3.
Employees subject to mandatory retirement
36
1.3.
Basic concepts: Age equality, ageism, age discrimination and mandatory retirement
39
1.4.
Mandatory retirement in light of pension reforms
41
1.4.1.
Recent developments in Norway
41
1.4.2.
Recent developments in Germany
45
1.5.
Structure of the thesis
47
2.
Perspectives and methodology
48
2.1.
Interdisciplinary approach
48
2.2.
Comparative approach: Why and how
50
2.2.1.
Why choose a comparative approach?
50
2.2.2.
Why choose a legal comparison between Norway and Germany?
51
2.2.3.
How to undertake a legal comparative analysis: The chosen method of comparison
52
2.2.4.
standard of comparison: Dir. 2000/78/EC
57
2.3.
Linguistic and terminological challenges
58
2.4.
legal system in Norway and Germany: Methodological and institutional overview
59
3.
concept of mandatory retirement
65
3.1.
Mandatory retirement versus pensionable age
65
3.2.
General versus special mandatory retirement age limits
67
3.3.
Absolute versus relative mandatory retirement age limits
70
4.
Mandatory retirement and the concept of ageism
71
4.1.
Introduction
71
4.2.
Defining ageism
72
4.3.
Intermediate conclusion
75
5.
Mandatory retirement and the concept of age equality
77
5.1.
Age equality and age discrimination
77
5.2.
Age equality among whom?
78
5.3.
Age equality of what?
79
5.3.1.
Equality of opportunities versus equality of results
81
5.3.2.
Age equality in employment as a question of choice
84
5.3.3.
Age equality in employment as a question of dignity
85
5.3.4.
Age equality in employment as a question of participation and social inclusion
87
5.4.
Limitations to the concept of age equality
88
5.5.
Intermediate conclusion
88
6.
Mandatory retirement from a gerontological perspective
89
6.1.
Introduction
90
6.2.
many faces of age and ageing
90
6.3.
Key findings and developments in gerontopsychological research
93
6.3.1.
Ageing as a process of decline
93
6.3.2.
Ageing as a process of success
95
6.3.3.
Ageing as a process of continuity
96
6.3.4.
Ageing as a process of growth in wisdom and maturity
96
6.3.5.
Recent studies: The decline of capabilities with age - a myth?
97
6.4.
Intermediate conclusion
101
7.
Mandatory retirement, the labour-market situation and demographical findings
102
7.1.
Introduction
102
7.2.
Employment and unemployment rates of older workers
103
7.3.
labour-force participation of older workers
104
7.4.
exit age from the labour market
106
7.5.
demographic challenge in Norway and Germany
107
8.
Implications of the gerontological, demographical and statistical findings of the labour market for the analysis of mandatory retirement
110
Part II
113
9.
Prohibition against age discrimination in human rights law
113
9.1.
Introduction
113
9.2.
Charter of the United Nations
116
9.3.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
117
9.4.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
119
9.4.1.
Protection against age discrimination in the ICESCR and ICCPR
120
9.4.2.
right to work and free choice of employment in the ICESCR and ICCPR
123
9.5.
International Labour Organization instruments
125
9.5.1.
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (ILO No. 111) and Employment Policy Convention (ILO No. 122)
125
9.5.2.
Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer Convention (ILO No. 158) and recommendation No. 166 of 1982
126
9.6.
Council of Europe Human Rights instruments
127
9.6.1.
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
128
9.6.2.
European Social Charter
132
9.7.
Protection against age discrimination in human rights soft law
136
9.7.1.
UN soft law mechanisms
136
9.7.1.1.
International Plan of Action on Ageing
137
9.7.1.2.
UN Principles for Older Persons
137
9.7.1.3.
Proclamation on Ageing
139
9.7.1.4.
Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing
140
9.7.2.
ILO soft law mechanisms
143
9.7.3.
Council of Europe soft law mechanisms
145
9.8.
Intermediate conclusion
147
9.9.
De lege ferenda: The need for their 'own' human rights instrument
150
10.
Prohibition against age discrimination in EU primary and secondary law
153
10.1.
EU primary law
153
10.2.
Secondary law: Prohibition against age discrimination in Dir. 2000/78/EC
156
10.2.1.
Material and personal scope of Dir. 2000/78/EC
157
10.2.2.
Forms of age discrimination prohibited by Dir. 2000/78/EC
160
10.2.2.1.
Direct age discrimination
160
10.2.2.2.
Indirect age discrimination
162
10.2.2.3.
Age discrimination plus X: The case of multiple discrimination
163
10.2.3.
Mandatory retirement: An example of direct age discrimination
166
10.3.
Justifying direct age discrimination: The system of exception and justification provisions in Dir. 2000/78/EC
167
10.3.1.
Exception according to Art. 2 No. 5 Dir.2000/78/EC
168
10.3.2.
Justification according to Art. 4 No. 1 Dir.2000/78/EC
170
10.3.3.
Justification according to Art. 6 No. 1 Dir.2000/78/EC
172
10.3.4.
Positive action according to Art. 7 No. 1 Dir.2000/78/EC
174
10.3.5.
Proportionality test: General considerations
176
10.3.6.
Intermediate conclusion
182
11.
Prohibition against age discrimination in Norwegian and German law
183
11.1.
Introduction
183
11.2.
Implementation of Dir. 2000/78/EC into Norwegian law
183
11.3.
Prohibition against age discrimination and central justification provisions in Norwegian law
186
11.3.1.
Working Environment Act
186
11.3.2.
Prohibition against age discrimination on the constitutional level
191
11.4.
Implementation of Dir. 2000/78/EC into German law
193
11.5.
Prohibition against age discrimination and central justification provisions in German law
197
11.5.1.
General Act on Equal Treatment
197
11.5.2.
Prohibition against age discrimination on the constitutional level
201
11.6.
Intermediate conclusion
205
Part III
207
12.
Justifying direct age discrimination in the case of mandatory retirement: General considerations
207
12.1.
Applicability of Dir. 2000/78/EC to provisions on mandatory retirement
207
12.2.
Standard of scrutiny
208
12.3.
Typically used justification patterns
210
12.3.1.
Introduction
210
12.3.2.
Justification patterns related to the employee
211
12.3.2.1.
Decline of capabilities and maintaining dignity
211
12.3.2.2.
Sufficient financial stability due to pension eligibility
216
12.3.3.
Justification patterns related to the employer
218
12.3.4.
Justification patterns related to third parties
221
13.
Mandatory retirement in medical professions: The example of physicians
222
13.1.
Introduction
222
13.2.
De lege lata situation in Norway
224
13.2.1.
Introduction
224
13.2.2.
Authorisations and licences
225
13.2.3.
student licence, turnus licence and licence for medical practitioners above the age of 75
226
13.2.4.
Expiration of authorisation at the age of 75: The age limit in [§] 54 (1) s. 1 hlspl.
227
13.2.5.
age limit for practising as a general practitioner in the fastlege system
228
13.2.6.
Critics to the age limit in [§] 54 > (1) s. 1 hlspl.
234
13.3.
Compatibility of the 75-year age limit in [§] 54 (1) s. 1 hlspl. with Dir. 2000/78/EC
239
13.3.1.
Scope of Dir. 2000/78/EC
239
13.3.2.
Direct age discrimination
241
13.3.3.
Justification of direct age discrimination
241
13.3.3.1.
Legitimate aim
242
13.3.3.1.1.
Securing the patients' health and the public health
242
13.3.3.1.2.
Financial stability of the national health system
250
13.3.3.1.3.
Fair distribution of employment opportunities among generations
250
13.3.3.1.4.
Intermediate conclusion
251
13.3.3.2.
Exception according to Art. 2 No. 5 Dir.2000/78/EC
252
13.3.3.2.1.
Necessity and appropriateness
253
13.3.3.2.2.
Proportionality stricto sensu
256
13.3.3.3.
Justification according to Art. 4 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
257
13.3.3.4.
Justification according to Art. 7 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
259
13.3.4.
Intermediate conclusion
260
13.4.
Further examples of mandatory retirement in the Norwegian health sector
260
13.5.
De lege lata situation in Germany
261
13.5.1.
Introduction
261
13.5.2.
Authorisation
266
13.5.3.
Withdrawal and expiration of authorisation
267
13.5.4.
Obligation to undertake advanced training
268
13.6.
Compatibility of [§] 95 (7) SGB V with Dir. 2000/78/EC
269
13.7.
Critical analysis of the de lege lata status quo in Germany
269
13.8.
Final discussion, comparison and conclusion
270
14.
Mandatory retirement in higher education: The example of public university professors
272
14.1.
Introduction
272
14.2.
De lege lata situation in Norway
274
14.2.1.
Mandatory retirement age limit
274
14.2.2.
Exceptions to the age limit: Extensions per fixed-term employment contracts
277
14.2.3.
Further employment under pensjonistvilkar/pensioner's terms and affiliation to the university as professor emeritus
282
14.3.
De lege lata situation in Germany
283
14.3.1.
Mandatory retirement age limit
283
14.3.2.
Exceptions to the age limit: Extensions per fixed- term employment contracts
285
14.3.3.
Emeritus regulations
288
14.4.
Compatibility analysis
289
14.4.1.
scope of Dir. 2000/78/EC
290
14.4.2.
Direct age discrimination
291
14.4.3.
Justification of direct age discrimination
293
14.4.3.1.
Legitimate aim
293
14.4.3.1.1.
Intergenerational equity argument: Balanced age structure
296
14.4.3.1.2.
Mental and physical decline of abilities due to the ageing process
302
14.4.3.1.3.
Saving costs
306
14.4.3.2.
Justification according to Art. 6 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
308
14.4.3.2.1.
Necessity and suitability
308
14.4.3.2.2.
Intermediate result
312
14.4.3.3.
Justification according to Art. 4 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
313
14.4.3.4.
Justification according to Art. 7 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
314
14.5.
Final discussion, comparison and conclusion
314
15.
Mandatory retirement in security-relevant professions: The example of pilots
317
15.1.
Introduction
317
15.2.
De lege lata legal framework
319
15.2.1.
International legal framework
319
15.2.2.
legal framework on the EU level
322
15.2.3.
De lege lata situation in Norway and Germany
322
15.2.4.
Intermediate conclusion
326
15.3.
Compatibility analysis
327
15.3.1.
Scope of Dir. 2000/78/EC
327
15.3.2.
Direct age discrimination
329
15.3.3.
Justification of direct age discrimination
330
15.3.3.1.
Legitimate aim
330
15.3.3.1.1.
Security: Ensuring air safety as a legitimate aim
331
15.3.3.1.2.
Promotion of younger employees
336
15.3.3.1.3.
Dignity of the employee
338
15.3.3.2.
Exception according to Art. 2 No. 5 Dir. 2000/78/EC
339
15.3.3.2.1.
Necessity
342
15.3.3.2.1.1.
Medical and psychological testing as an alternative to mandatory retirement
342
15.3.3.2.1.2.
Engagement of `60+' pilots in a multi-person cockpit crew as an alternative to mandatory retirement
343
15.3.3.2.2.
Intermediate conclusion
346
15.3.3.3.
Justification according to Art. 4 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
347
15.3.3.4.
Justification according to Art. 6 No. 1 Dir. 2000/78/EC
349
15.3.3.5.
Proportionality test: Balancing of interests
351
15.4.
Final conclusion
355
Part IV
358
16.
De lege ferenda considerations
358
16.1.
Introduction
358
16.2.
General considerations
359
16.2.1.
Enabling employees to extend their working life: Workability, employability and flexicurity
359
16.2.2.
Attitudes towards extending working life
365
16.2.3.
Flexible pathways from working life to retirement
368
16.3.
De lege ferenda considerations as regards selected examples of mandatory retirement
374
16.3.1.
Introduction
374
16.3.2.
De lege ferenda considerations as regards mandatory retirement for physicians
375
16.3.3.
De lege ferenda considerations as regards mandatory retirement for professors
377
16.3.4.
De lege ferenda considerations as regards mandatory retirement for pilots
380
17.
Final remarks and key findings
381
List of laws, preparatory work, official documents etc.
385
Table of Cases
394
Bibliography
401