This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0141
Case C-141/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB
Case C-141/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB
Case C-141/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB
OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 152/16 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB
(Case C-141/11)
2011/C 152/29
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Södertörns Tingsrätt
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Karl Torsten Hörnfeldt
Defendant: Posten Meddelande AB
Questions referred
The Tingsrätt asks the Court of Justice of the European Union to answer the following questions concerning the interpretation of the general principle of law on the prohibition of age discrimination and of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation: (1)
|
1. |
Can a national rule which, like the 67-year rule, gives rise to a difference of treatment on grounds of age be legitimate even if it is not possible to determine clearly from the context in which the rule has come into being or from other information what aim or purpose the rule is intended to serve? |
|
2. |
Does a national retirement provision such as the 67-year rule, to which there is no exception and which does not take account of factors such as the pension which an individual may ultimately receive, go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the aim pursued? |