The Minister for Justice and Equality and The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62017CJ0378
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2018:979
• Date: 04 December 2018
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: C-378/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

4 December 2018 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Recruitment of police officers — National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area — Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law — Primacy of EU law)

In Case C‑378/17,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court (Ireland), made by decision of 16 June 2017, received at the Court on 22 June 2017, in the proceedings

Minister for Justice and Equality,

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

v

Workplace Relations Commission,

notice parties:

Ronald Boyle and Others,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Vice-President, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, T. von Danwitz, C. Toader and F. Biltgen, Presidents of Chambers, E. Levits, L. Bay Larsen, M. Safjan, C.G. Fernlund, C. Vajda and S. Rodin, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Wahl,

Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 June 2018,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and Ireland, by M. Browne, L. Williams and T. Joyce, acting as Agents, A. Kerr, Barrister-at-Law, and B. Murray, Senior Counsel,

– the Workplace Relations Commission, by G. Gilmore, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Power, Senior Counsel, instructed by S. Larkin, Solicitor,

– Ronald Boyle and Others, by D. Fennelly, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by M. Mullan, Solicitor,

– the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Pavliš, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by H. Krämer and L. Flynn, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 September 2018,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the question whether a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area must be able to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

2 The request has been made in proceedings between (i) the Minister for Justice and Equality (Ireland) (‘the Minister’) and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána (Commissioner of the national police force, Ireland) and (ii) the Equality Tribunal (Ireland), whose functions have, from 2015, been assumed by the Workplace Relations Commission (Ireland), concerning the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission to decide to disapply provisions of national law that are contrary to EU law.

Legal context

EU law

3 As set out in Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16): ‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.’

4 In Article 3 of Directive 2000/78, headed ‘Scope’, paragraph 1(a) provides: ‘Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the [European Union], this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to: (a) conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion; ...’

5 In Chapter II of Directive 2000/78, headed ‘Remedies and enforcement’, Article 9(1) is worded as follows: ‘Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures, including where they deem it appropriate conciliation procedures, for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them, even after the relationship in which the discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended.’

Irish law

6 Article 34 of the Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland) provides: ‘1 Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public. 2 The Courts shall comprise: i Courts of First Instance; ii a Court of Appeal; and iii a Court of Final Appeal. 3 1° The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal. 2° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.’

7 Article 37.1 of the Constitution of Ireland states: ‘Nothing in this Constitution shall operate to invalidate the exercise of limited functions and powers of a judicial nature, in matters other than criminal matters, by any person or body of persons duly authorised by law to exercise such functions and powers, notwithstanding that such person or such body of persons is not a judge or a court appointed or established as such under this Constitution.’

8 The national measures transposing Directive 2000/78 as far as concerns employment, including recruitment, are set out in the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 (‘the Equality Acts’), section 77(1) of which provides: ‘A person who claims … to have been discriminated against … in contravention of [the Equality Acts] may … seek redress by referring the case to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission.’

9 Section 82 of the Equality Acts lays down various forms of redress that may be ordered by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission. He may make an order (i) for compensation in the form of arrears of remuneration (in the event of breach of the duty to provide equal remuneration) in respect of so much of the period of employment as begins not more than three years before the date of the referral under section 77(1) of the Equality Acts which led to the decision of the Director General, (ii) for equal remuneration from that date, (iii) for compensation for the effects of acts of discrimination or victimisation which occurred not earlier than six years before the date of the referral of the case under section 77 of the Equality Acts, (iv) for equal treatment in whatever respect is relevant to the case, (v) that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is specified therein or (vi) for reinstatement or re-engagement, with or without an order for compensation.

10 Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Garda Síochána (Admissions and Appointments) Regulations 1988, as amended by the Garda Síochána (Admissions and Appointments) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (‘the Admissions and Appointments Regulations’), provides: ‘Subject to these Regulations, the Commissioner shall not admit a person as a trainee unless— ... (c) he is satisfied that the person is at least 18, but under 35, years of age on the first day of the month in which an advertisement of the vacancy to which the admission relates was first published in a national newspaper; ...’

The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

11 Ronald Boyle and two other persons (‘Mr Boyle and Others’) were excluded from the procedure for recruitment of new police officers to An Garda Síochána (national police force, Ireland) on the ground that they were above the maximum age for recruitment laid down by the Admissions and Appointments Regulations.

12 Following that decision, Mr Boyle and Others brought complaints before the Equality Tribunal.

13 They submitted that the setting of a maximum age for recruitment to the national police force constitutes discrimination prohibited both by Directive 2000/78 and by the provisions of Irish law transposing that directive.

14 The Minister pleaded that the Equality Tribunal lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the measure which imposed the maximum age for recruitment to the national police force was a measure of national law, meaning that only courts established under the Constitution of Ireland had jurisdiction to decide, if necessary, to disapply such a provision. However, the Equality Tribunal decided that it would proceed to consider the complaints, nevertheless stating that it would, as part of that process, consider and decide the jurisdictional issue raised by the Minister.

15 The Minister brought an action before the High Court (Ireland) for an order prohibiting the Equality Tribunal from acting in a manner contrary to law.

16 The High Court upheld the Minister’s action by an order prohibiting the Equality Tribunal from ruling on...