Dansk Industri, acting on behalf of Ajos A/S, v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen Case C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278
Facts
Karsten Rasmussen was dismissed after lengthy employment. Danish law provided severance pay in certain circumstances but excluded workers entitled to an employer-funded old-age pension under specified conditions. His private employer relied on that exception. The dispute raised whether the exclusion unjustifiably discriminated on grounds of age, particularly where the worker wished to remain in the labour market. The Danish Supreme Court referred questions about the general EU age-equality principle, conforming interpretation, legal certainty and the employer’s expectation that it could rely on settled national law.
Legal Issue
Could settled national law and the private employer’s expectations prevent enforcement of the general EU prohibition of age discrimination in the severance-pay dispute?
Held
The Court held that the general principle prohibiting age discrimination, as given expression by Directive 2000/78, precluded the national exclusion in the circumstances. The national court first had to seek conforming interpretation, reconsidering established case law where necessary. If that was impossible, it had to disapply the conflicting provision within EU law’s scope. Legal certainty and legitimate expectations did not permit the court to preserve the discriminatory result on the basis suggested. Nor was a possible state-liability claim a substitute for protecting the right in the private dispute. The reasoning relied on the general principle, rather than declaring the directive itself ordinarily horizontally directly effective.
⭐ Legal Principle
Within EU law’s scope, the general prohibition of age discrimination can require disapplication in private litigation where conforming interpretation is impossible. Reliance on settled national law does not automatically defeat that right.
Significance
Dansk Industri develops Mangold and Kücükdeveci and makes the sequence of interpretation and disapplication important. It should not be described simply as horizontal direct effect of the directive. The subsequent national constitutional response is a separate issue from what the Court of Justice held. A current UK problem requires its own statutory basis for the asserted equality right and cannot assume this EU remedial route applies unchanged.
Common exam questions about this case
Why is the legal source of the right important?
The Court relied on the general age-discrimination principle, with the directive giving it expression. Treating the decision as ordinary horizontal direct effect of a directive would obscure the distinction preserved in Marshall. The source and EU-law scope must be established before selecting the enforcement route.
Must the court try interpretation before disapplication?
The Court required conforming interpretation so far as possible, including reconsideration of existing judicial interpretation where appropriate. Disapplication became relevant if that route could not secure compliance. A strong answer therefore examines domestic interpretative possibilities rather than jumping immediately from inconsistency to setting aside the statute.
Could a state-liability action replace protection in the employer dispute?
The Court did not accept that possibility as a reason to deny the employee the substantive right in the private proceedings. Remedies against the state address a different relationship. Their potential availability did not automatically justify preserving an age-discriminatory national rule in the claim being decided.