Mangold v Helm (Case C-144/04) [2005] ECR I-9981

Facts

  • Mr. Mangold, a 56-year-old German lawyer, was employed under a fixed-term employment contract.
  • German legislation permitted fixed-term contracts for workers over 52 years old, purportedly to encourage employment of older persons.
  • Mr. Mangold challenged this law as constituting age discrimination, contrary to the principle of equal treatment under EU law.
  • At the time, Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation had not been fully implemented in Germany.
  • The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of the national law with EU principles.

Issues

  1. Whether the German legislation allowing fixed-term contracts solely for workers over a certain age constituted unlawful age discrimination under EU law.
  2. Whether the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age had direct effect prior to full implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC.
  3. Whether national courts were obliged to disapply national provisions in conflict with the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age.

Decision

  • The ECJ found that the German law was incompatible with the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age.
  • The Court held that this general principle forms part of the Community legal order and possesses direct effect, even if not expressly implemented by a directive.
  • The Court cited Article 6(2) TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as sources confirming the prohibition of age discrimination.
  • National courts were found obliged to set aside provisions of national law that conflicted with the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age.

Legal Principles

  • The general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age is binding within EU law, regardless of the status of directive implementation.
  • This principle has direct effect, permitting individuals to rely on it before national courts.
  • National law that conflicts with general principles of EU law, such as non-discrimination, must be disapplied by domestic courts.
  • Article 6(2) TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights were instrumental in confirming these fundamental rights protections.

Conclusion

The ECJ’s judgment in Mangold v Helm established that the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age is directly effective and takes precedence over conflicting national law, reinforcing the central importance of fundamental rights within the EU legal order.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal