## Facts

- Gisela Rosenbladt worked part-time as a cleaner for Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH in Germany.
- Her employment contract was subject, by operation of German law, to a sectoral collective bargaining agreement in the cleaning industry, regardless of her union membership.
- The collective agreement provided that employment would end automatically at the end of the month in which the worker became entitled to a statutory old-age pension or reached age 65, whichever was later.
- When Rosenbladt turned 65 and was entitled to a statutory old-age pension, the employer treated her employment as terminated under the clause.
- Rosenbladt challenged the termination as unlawful age discrimination under national law and EU law, relying on Directive 2000/78/EC.
- The Hamburg Labour Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2000/78/EC.

## Issues

1. Whether a collective agreement clause that automatically terminates employment when a worker reaches normal retirement age and is entitled to a statutory old-age pension constitutes prohibited age discrimination under Directive 2000/78/EC.
2. Whether such a clause can be justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC as pursuing legitimate employment-policy or labor-market aims through appropriate and necessary means, despite the lack of an individualized assessment.

## Decision

- The CJEU held that Directive 2000/78/EC does not preclude national rules treating such collective-agreement clauses as valid, if justified under Article 6(1).
- The Court found the clause involved a difference of treatment based on age, but it could be justified by legitimate employment-policy and labor-market aims.
- The Court accepted aims such as facilitating access to employment for younger workers, sharing employment between generations, and enabling predictable staff planning.
- The Court concluded the mechanism could be proportionate, emphasizing the linkage to pension entitlement and the role of collective bargaining.
- The CJEU left application to the referring court, but its interpretation supported the general compatibility of the clause with EU law when Article 6(1) conditions are met.

## Legal Principles

- Automatic termination at retirement age constitutes age-based differential treatment within the scope of Directive 2000/78/EC.
- Under Article 6(1), age-based treatment may be lawful if it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim related to employment policy or the labor market, and the means are appropriate and necessary.
- Member States have broad discretion in selecting measures to pursue social and employment policy objectives, subject to proportionality review.
- In assessing proportionality, relevant considerations include: termination conditioned on entitlement to a statutory pension; the collective-agreement setting and social-partner autonomy; and whether a fair balance is struck between older workers’ interests and workforce-planning and youth-employment objectives.
- Fundamental-rights concerns (including the right to work) must be considered, but interference may be proportionate where pension protection exists and the measure pursues legitimate social-policy aims; concrete hardship and pension adequacy remain for national courts to assess.

## Conclusion

The CJEU held that a collectively bargained mandatory retirement clause tied to statutory pension eligibility can comply with Directive 2000/78/EC when it pursues legitimate labor-market aims and is proportionate, with national courts applying that standard to the facts.


Rosenbladt v. Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH, Case C-45/09 (C.J.E.U. 2010)