Mangold v Helm
The principle of non discrimination on grounds of age is a general principle of EU law, which a national court must apply even in a dispute between private parties.
Facts
Mr Mangold, aged 56, was employed by Mr Helm, a lawyer, on a fixed term contract. A German law allowed employers to make fixed term contracts with workers over 52 without any objective justification, while such contracts were restricted for younger workers. Mr Mangold argued that this was age discrimination contrary to an EU directive on equal treatment in employment, although the deadline for implementing the age provisions of the directive had not yet passed.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the German law was contrary to EU law, and that the national court must set it aside, even in a dispute between private parties. It said that the principle of non discrimination on grounds of age must be regarded as a general principle of EU law, which has its source in various international instruments and in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, and the directive merely gave specific expression to it. The decision was controversial, because it appeared to give horizontal effect to a directive before the implementation deadline.
Related cases on direct effect of directives
- Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt Case 8/81, [1982] ECR 53
- CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA Case C-194/94, [1996] ECR I-2201
- Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen Case C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278
- Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV Case C-414/16, EU:C:2018:257
- Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl Case C-91/92, [1994] ECR I-3325
- Farrell v Whitty Case C-413/15, EU:C:2017:745
- Foster v British Gas plc Case C-188/89, [1990] ECR I-3313
- Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano Case 103/88, [1989] ECR 1839
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
