歐洲聯盟就業年齡歧視之救濟

A discussion over the Remedy of Age Discrimination in Employment in European Union

楊通軒(Yang, Tong Shuan)

《東海大學法學研究》 54期 (2018/04) Pp. 1-54

摘要

針對就業年齡歧視之救濟，除了民法的損害賠償外，依據平等待遇基準指令第16條及第17條之要求，違反歧視之規定應為無效或修正及會員國應該採取有效的制裁措施。因此，歐盟各界認為針對違反就業年齡歧視的救濟，為保障受優待者的既得權及信賴保護，並不得採取「向下調整」的方式為之。將高齡勞工已經得到的工資撤回，只是讓所有勞工形式上平等而已，並非實質上的平等。經過各種利益的綜合考量後，學術界及實務界均認為「向上調整」係唯一可行的救濟方式，受優待者的工資額度或特別休假的日數或退休年齡，適用到受歧視者身上。因此，歐盟法院有相當期間即是以「向上調整」，作為彌補受歧視者的損害的方式。惟「向上調整」實繫於兩個前提要件，一者，受到歧視者只能限於一小部分的人，以免雇主的財務負擔過大；二者，必須存在一個可以被引用的制度（Bezugssystem）。由此觀之，歐盟法院對於工資的歧視待遇，充其量只能稱為「有限度地向上調整」而已。這也表示在救濟方法上，並不宜全面採取「向上調整」的方式，以免導致雇主財務負擔過大或甚至導致無法經營的境地。所以，只有在一小部分的勞工工資受到歧視的情況，始有適用向上調整的餘地。另外，歐盟法院在Mangold案及Kücükdeveci案判決中，藉由一套「初級共同體法與指令的結合體」的運用模式，將禁止年齡歧視作為歐盟法上的未明文的一般原則，而對於會員國的私人直接發生效力。其應可被界定為「歐盟法院法制史上的重大事件」。

關鍵字

就業年齡歧視 ； 平等待遇基準指令 ； 信賴保護 ； 向下調整 ； 向上調整 ； 有限度地向上調整

並列摘要

In addition to the compensation for discrimination in employment age, the provisions of article 16 and article 17 of the Equal Treatment Benchmark shall be invalid or amended and Member States shall take effective sanctions in accordance with the provisions of article 16 and article 17 of the Equal Treatment Benchmark Directive. Therefore, the EU community that the violation of discrimination on the basis of discrimination in employment, in order to protect the beneficiaries of the vested rights and trust protection, and shall not take ＂downward adjustment＂ approach. The withdrawal of the wages that have been received by the older laborers is merely equal for all forms of labor, not substantial equality. After a comprehensive consideration of the various interests, the academic and practical circles are of the view that the ＂upward adjustment＂ is the only form of relief that is payable to the discriminatory person by the amount of the preferential wage or the number of days of special leave or the retirement age. Therefore, the EU courts have a considerable period of time to ＂adjust up＂ as a way to compensate for the damage of those who are discriminated against. But the ＂upward adjustment＂ is in two prerequisites, one, the discriminators can only be limited to a small number of people, so as not to the employer's financial burden is too large; both, there must be a system can be cited (Bezugssystem).In view of this, the EU courts discriminatory treatment of wages, at best, can only be called ＂limited upward adjustment＂ only. It also means that in the case of relief, it is not advisable to take a ＂upward adjustment＂ approach in a way that will lead to excessive or even financial incapacity to the employer. Therefore, only in a small part of the labor wages are discriminated against the situation, there is room for upward adjustment. In addition, the European Court of Justice in the Mangold case and Kücükdeveci case, by a set of ＂primary community law and the combination of instructions＂ mode of use, will prohibit age discrimination as the EU law on the unspecified general principles, and for Member States Of the private direct effect. It should be defined as ＂a major event in the history of the European Court of Justice.＂

並列關鍵字

employment age discrimination ； equal treatment benchmark directive ； trust protection ； downward adjustment ； upward adjustment ； limited upward adjustment

參考文獻

Henssler, Martin/ Kaiser, Eva Maria, Besprechung des Urteils EuGH v. 8.8.2011 – Rs. C-297/10 - Hennigs, RdA 2012, München 2012.

楊通軒，歐洲聯盟勞工法律之研究，中原財經法學第7 期，2001年12 月，頁159-210。

楊通軒，歐洲聯盟基本權之研究（上），政大法學評論第86期，2005 年6 月，頁263-308。

Bauer, Jobst-Hubertus /Göpfert, Burkhard /Krieger, Steffen, AGG § 7, München 2011.

Bayreuter, Frank, Disriminierung und sachwidrige Ungleichbehandlung: nicht nur eine Frage des Anstands, NZA Beil. 1/2011, München 2011.