Yesterday, the European Court of Justice rejected the appeal of a Spanish manager, Félix Palacios de la Villa, who took his company, Cortefiel Servicios SA, to court when he was notified of his pension two years ago, claiming that this was against the European principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age.
But, by reaching above mentioned verdict, the 13 in Luxembourg are backing the mandatory retirement age, stating that this issue should be in accordance with the labour legislation in each member state, saying that even though discrimination based on age was illegal, the compulsory retirement age for employees can be justified to stabilize the labour markets and if proper pension is provided, which is compatible with the European law.
If the court had ruled otherwise, challenging the pension system, it would have caused difficulties in social and economic policies throughout all the 27 EU countries, since the goal of mandatory pension schemes is to free up jobs for younger people, helping to improve economic growth, reduce unemployment and pay for the demands of an aging population.
On the other hand, the present EU trend is, besides combating age discrimination on the job, to encourage older people to work longer, to finance their retirements. The gap between young and older employees is particularly acute in Eastern Europe, where young, educated and skilled citizens are moving in Western countries for higher wages, leaving an aging labour-force behind.
In conclusion, as I was saying yesterday , the main demographic/ human capital policy problem is not the mandatory age retirement, but the early retirement, widespread all over Europe, event though there are several groups that challenge the compulsory retirement at a certain age.
I know, I don’t like it either. Due to the working conditions in Romania, I would love to retire at age of 50-55, but I realize this will not be possible for many generations.