EuGH · C-359/25 · 22.10.2026 · ECLI:EU:C:2026:898
Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)
22 October 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 1 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Compulsory retirement of officials in a diplomatic service who have reached the age of 65 and completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service – Article 6 – Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on grounds of age )
In Case C‑359/25 [Delevris] (i),
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece), made by decision of 8 May 2025, received at the Court on 27 May 2025, in the proceedings
IS
v
Ypourgos Exoterikon,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of B. Smulders, President of the Chamber, M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), President of the Fifth Chamber, acting as Judge of the Tenth Chamber, and J. Passer, Judge,
Advocate General: A. Biondi,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– IS, by E. Kalafatis, dikigoros,
– the Greek Government, by A. Magrippi, O. Patsopoulou and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents,
– the European Commission, by M. Konstantinidis and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation 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).
2 This request has been made in proceedings between IS, a former official in the diplomatic service of the Ypourgeio Exoterikon (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece), and the Ypourgos Exoterikon (Minister for Foreign Affairs) concerning an application for the annulment of a presidential decree on the basis of which IS was subject to compulsory retirement.
Legal context
European Union law
3 Recital 14 of Directive 2000/78 reads:
‘This Directive shall be without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages.’
4 Article 1 of that directive provides:
‘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.’
5 Article 2 of that directive provides:
‘1. For the purposes of this Directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1;
(b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having … a particular age … at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:
(i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary …
…’
6 Under Article 3(1) of that directive:
‘Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:
…
(c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay;
…’
7 Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 provides:
‘Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Such differences of treatment may include, among others:
(a) the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection;
(b) the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment;
(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.’
Greek law
8 The third subparagraph of Article 16(6) of the Greek Constitution provides:
‘The age limit for professors of higher education institutions shall be determined by law; until such law is issued, professors in post shall leave service by operation of law at the end of the academic year during which they reach the age of sixty-seven.’
9 Article 88(5) of the Greek Constitution provides:
‘Judicial officials up to and including the ranks of judge or Deputy Prosecutor of the [Efeteio (Court of Appeal, Greece)] as well as those of an equivalent rank shall be required to leave service upon attainment of the age of 65; judicial officials of a higher rank than the former or of an equivalent rank shall be required to leave service upon attainment of the age of 67. …’
10 Article 98(1) and (3) of Nomos 3566/2007 – Kyrosi os Kodika tou ‘Organismou tou Ypourgeiou Exoterikon’ (Law 3566/2007 ratifying the Statute of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (FEK A’ 117), in the version applicable to the case in the main proceedings (‘Law 3566/2007’), provided:
‘1. The employment of officials in the diplomatic service who have reached the age of 65 shall cease, provided they have completed thirty-five (35) years of actual and pensionable public service. If, upon reaching the age of 65, officials in that service category have not completed thirty-five (35) years of service in that category, their employment shall be extended until they have completed 35 years, but not beyond the age of 67. …
…
3. By a decree, adopted on the basis of a proposal from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the period of service of officials in the diplomatic service with ambassadorial rank may, by reason of particular requirements of the service, be extended for a maximum of two (2) years after they have completed 35 years of public service but, in any event, not beyond the age of 67.’
11 Under Article 155(1) and (2) of Nomos 3528/2007 Kyrosi tou Kodika Katastasis Dimosion Politikon Dioikitikon Ypallilon kai Ypallilon N.P.D.D. (Law 3528/2007 ratifying the employment code for civil servants in the public administration and employees of legal persons governed by public law) (FEK A’ 26), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, civil servants and employees of legal persons governed by public law shall leave service on reaching the age of 67.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
12 IS is a former official in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
13 By a presidential decree adopted pursuant to Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007, which provides for the automatic termination of diplomatic officials’ duties upon reaching the age of 65 and completing 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, IS’s duties were terminated with effect from 31 December 2017, on the ground that, at that date, he had reached the age of 65 and had completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service.
14 IS brought an action for annulment of that presidential decree before the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon (Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens, Greece).
15 IS raised two pleas in law in support of his action, the first alleging that the said presidential decree was adopted on an incorrect legal basis, and the second alleging that Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 infringes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age laid down in Directive 2000/78.
16 The action was dismissed as unfounded by a judgment of that court, which held that Article 98(1) is compatible with Directive 2000/78.
17 On 7 May 2021, IS brought an appeal against that judgment before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece), which is the referring court.
18 IS raises two grounds in support of his appeal.
19 The first ground, alleging that the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon (Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens) incorrectly dismissed the plea alleging that the presidential decree was adopted on an incorrect legal basis, was rejected by the referring court.
20 The second ground alleges that the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon (Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens) incorrectly dismissed the plea that Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 infringes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, on the ground that that provision has the effect of establishing a difference of treatment between officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have reached the age of 65 and completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service and: (i) officials in the diplomatic service who have not completed 35 years of actual public service and who therefore only leave service at the age of 67; (ii) officials in the diplomatic service who have not reached the age of 65 and who, as a result, are not subject to compulsory retirement; and (iii) officials in the public administration, employees of legal persons governed by public law, judicial officials with a rank higher than that of judge or Deputy Prosecutor of the Efeteio (Court of Appeal) or of an equivalent rank as well as professors of higher education institutions, who leave service at the age of 67 irrespective of whether, upon reaching the age of 65, they have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service.
21 In that regard, it is apparent from the order for reference that, in IS’s view, under the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have not completed 35 years of actual public service may remain in post until the age of 67. Furthermore, IS submits that Article 98(3) of Law 3566/2007 provides that a presidential decree adopted on the basis of a proposal from the Minister for Foreign Affairs may, by reason of particular requirements of the service, extend the duties of certain officials until the age of 67 but not beyond.
22 According to IS, that law thus introduces a difference of treatment on grounds of age in respect of officials such as himself, without however pursuing a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 6 of Directive 2000/78.
23 Moreover, IS argues that officials who have performed their duties beyond 35 years of actual public service may receive higher pension amounts, so that the compulsory retirement of officials in the diplomatic service at the age of 65, once they have completed 35 years of actual public service, causes a ‘loss in relation to pension’ to their detriment as compared to officials who retire at the age of 67 after completing over 35 years of service.
24 The Minister for Foreign Affairs maintains that the alleged difference of treatment on grounds of age is, in any event, justified, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.
25 First, the national legislation providing for the compulsory retirement of officials in the diplomatic service at the end of a 35-year period of actual and pensionable public service, together with an age limit between 65 and 67, is intended, according to the Minister, to create a balanced age structure in the Greek diplomatic service and to facilitate access to that service for young officials. Secondly, the requirement to leave service concerns only a small number of officials and does not undermine the coherence of that legislation. Thirdly, that legislation is appropriate for attaining those aims. Fourthly, it is also ‘necessary’ for the purposes of Directive 2000/78, since those aims cannot be attained effectively through less restrictive means. Fifthly, the alleged difference of treatment between officials in the diplomatic service and other officials is justified by the specific nature of the diplomatic service and by the duties carried out by its officials.
26 The referring court draws attention to the fact that, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs observed, the aim of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings consists in ensuring an age structure that balances younger and older officials, which allows for the transmission of experience from the older to the younger and facilitates young officials’ access to the diplomatic service. Furthermore, it claims that the national legislature took account of the need, for diplomatic officials, to complete a sufficient period of service in order to be entitled to an appropriate amount of pension, and of the importance of paying a sufficient amount of contributions to strengthen the social security system. For those reasons, the main criterion chosen by the national legislature is the completion of 35 years of actual and pensionable public service as well as the minimum and maximum age limits of 65 and 67 respectively. Moreover, that court submits, in an accessory manner, that the specific nature of the diplomatic service justifies the difference of treatment on grounds of age as regards the retirement of officials in that service as compared with that of other officials.
27 In those circumstances, the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Does Directive [2000/78] preclude [national legislation] which provides that officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must retire from the service upon completion of 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, but not before reaching the age of 65 or after reaching the age of 67, on the ground that [that legislation] introduces unjustified discrimination against officials in the diplomatic service who are required to retire from the service at the age of 65 because at that time they have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service:
– in comparison with officials in the diplomatic service who are required to retire from the service on reaching the age of 67 because they had not up until that time completed 35 years of actual and pensionable [public] service?
– in comparison with officials in the diplomatic service who have not reached the age of 65 and are therefore not required to retire from the service?
– in comparison with civil servants in the [public administration] and employees of legal persons governed by public law, … judicial officials [with a rank higher than that of judge or Deputy Prosecutor of the Efeteio (Court of Appeal)] and professors in higher education [institutions] who are required to retire from the service on reaching the age of 67, irrespective of whether, at the age of 65 or at any other time, they had completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service?’
Consideration of the question referred
28 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that officials in a diplomatic service are required to retire at the age of 65 upon completion of 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, unlike other officials and public servants who do not satisfy those conditions and who, as a result, are not required to retire at that age.
29 In order to answer that question, it is necessary to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that legislation establishes a difference of treatment on grounds of age and, should that indeed be the case, whether such a difference may be justified in the light of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 (judgment of 20 April 2023, BVAEB (Adjustment of retirement pensions), C‑52/22, EU:C:2023:309, paragraph 40).
30 In the first place, with regard to the question whether that national legislation comes within the scope of Directive 2000/78, it is apparent both from its title and preamble and from its content and purpose that that directive seeks to lay down a general framework in order to guarantee equal treatment ‘in employment and occupation’ to all persons, by offering them effective protection against discrimination on one of the grounds covered by Article 1, which include age (judgment of 20 April 2023, BVAEB (Adjustment of retirement pensions), C‑52/22, EU:C:2023:309, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
31 Under Article 3(1)(c) thereof, that directive is to apply, within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the European Union, ‘to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies’, in relation, in particular, to ‘employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay’.
32 In the present case, pursuant to Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007, officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have reached the age of 65 are required to retire provided they have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service. It follows that that provision concerns ‘employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78, inasmuch as it entails that the officials concerned must retire once they satisfy both conditions.
33 That finding cannot be called into question on the ground that, according to recital 14 thereof, Directive 2000/78 is without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages.
34 It is apparent from the case-law that that recital merely states that the directive does not affect the competence of the Member States to determine retirement age and it does not in any way preclude the application of the directive to national measures governing the conditions for termination of employment contracts where the retirement age, thus established, has been reached (judgment of 5 March 2009, Age Concern England, C‑388/07, EU:C:2009:128, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
35 Consequently, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2000/78.
36 In the second place, as regards the question whether that national legislation gives rise to a difference of treatment on grounds of age as regards employment and occupation, it must be noted that it is apparent from Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, read in conjunction with Article 1 thereof, that, for the purposes of that directive, the principle of equal treatment prohibits any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age.
37 Article 2(2)(a) of that directive states that, for the purposes of applying Article 2(1) thereof, direct discrimination is to be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of that directive.
38 In the present case, as indicated in paragraph 20 above, IS maintains that Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 establishes a difference of treatment based on age in so far as that provision treats less favourably officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have reached the age of 65 and completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, such as IS, as compared with (i) officials in the diplomatic service who have not completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service and who are therefore required to retire at the age of 67; (ii) officials in the diplomatic service who have not reached the age of 65 and who, as a result, are not subject to compulsory retirement; and (iii) officials in the public administration, employees of legal persons governed by public law, judicial officials with a rank higher than that of judge or Deputy Prosecutor of the Efeteio (Court of Appeal) or of an equivalent rank as well as professors of higher education institutions, who are required to retire at the age of 67 irrespective of whether, upon reaching the age of 65 or at a later time, they have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service.
39 However, it must be held, first of all, as the European Commission submits in its written observations, that in the present case, the difference of treatment based on age alleged by IS is not that which exists between officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, such as IS, and (i) officials in the diplomatic service who are required to retire at the age of 67 but who have not completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service; and (ii) officials in the public administration and employees of legal persons governed by public law who are required to retire upon reaching the age of 67, irrespective of whether, upon or after reaching the age of 65, they have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service.
40 That difference of treatment is not based on the age of the officials referred to in the preceding paragraph but on the number of years of actual and pensionable public service completed and/or the type of duties performed.
41 Since those two grounds do not appear among the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 1 of Directive 2000/78, that difference of treatment cannot come under the general framework established by Article 2(2) of that directive to combat certain forms of discrimination at the workplace (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 October 2024, Zetschek, C‑349/23, EU:C:2024:889, paragraphs 25 and 30 and the case-law cited).
42 By contrast, as regards, secondly, the difference of treatment between officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, such as IS, and officials in the diplomatic service who have not reached the age of 65 and who, as a result, are not required to retire, it should be noted that a national provision, such as Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007, on the basis of which the fact that an official has reached the age limit laid down therein for compulsory retirement entails the automatic termination of his or her employment must be regarded as directly imposing less favourable treatment on officials who have reached that age as compared with all other officials in the diplomatic service who are in active service and, thus, in a comparable situation, in that the former suffer, inter alia, a loss in income as compared with officials still in active service.
43 Such a provision of national legislation therefore establishes a difference of treatment directly based on age, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 October 2007, Palacios de la Villa, C‑411/05, EU:C:2007:604, paragraph 51).
44 In the third place, with regard to the question whether that difference of treatment directly based on age may be justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, it should be noted that, under that provision, notwithstanding Article 2(2) of that directive, Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
45 In that regard, first, as for the aim pursued by Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007, it is apparent from the written observations of the Greek Government that that aim is to ensure an age structure that balances younger and older officials in the diplomatic service, enabling, in the interest of the proper functioning of the diplomatic service, older officials to pass on their professional experience to the younger and, conversely, younger officials to disseminate newly acquired knowledge. That provision, furthermore, is intended to facilitate access to the diplomatic service for young officials.
46 It follows from the case-law of the Court that the legitimacy of an employment policy objective which consists, in essence, in facilitating the generational renewal and rejuvenation of a profession cannot reasonably be called into question, since it features among the aims expressly laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 and, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU, the promotion of a high level of employment is one of the ends pursued by the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 June 2021, Ministero della Giustizia (Notaries), C‑914/19, EU:C:2021:430, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
47 Furthermore, encouragement of recruitment undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate aim of Member States’ social or employment policy, in particular where the promotion of access of young people to a profession is involved (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 June 2021, Ministero della Giustizia (Notaries), C‑914/19, EU:C:2021:430, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
48 Thus, the aim of establishing an age structure that balances younger and older officials in the diplomatic service in order to encourage the recruitment and promotion of the former, to improve personnel management and thereby to prevent possible disputes concerning officials’ fitness to work beyond a certain age, while at the same time seeking to provide a functional diplomatic service, can constitute a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 July 2011, Fuchs and Köhler, C‑159/10 and C‑160/10, EU:C:2011:508, paragraph 50).
49 As a consequence, it is apparent that the aim of facilitating the generational renewal and rejuvenation of officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.
50 Secondly, in accordance with the wording of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, it remains to be established whether the means used to achieve that aim are ‘appropriate and necessary’.
51 As a first step, regarding the question whether Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 is ‘appropriate’, it must be noted that that provision – which establishes the compulsory retirement of officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have reached the age of 65 and have completed 35 years of actual and pensionable public service – may, in principle, given the broad discretion enjoyed by the Member States in the field of social and employment policy (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 June 2021, Ministero della Giustizia (Notaries), C‑914/19, EU:C:2021:430, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited), be regarded as being appropriate to achieve its aims, namely those of ensuring an age structure that balances younger and older diplomatic officials and of facilitating access for young officials to the diplomatic service.
52 First, it does not appear unreasonable for the authorities of a Member State to consider, in view of developments in the employment situation in a particular sector, that the application of an age limit leading to the older officials leaving the labour market may make it possible to promote the recruitment of younger officials, in so far as the posts for officials are, in general, of a limited number and open only to people who have attained the highest qualifications in the field concerned. Thus, since a vacant post has to be available for such an official to be appointed, the Court takes the view that a Member State may set an age limit to achieve employment policy objectives (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 November 2010, Georgiev, C‑250/09 and C‑268/09, EU:C:2010:699, paragraphs 51 and 52).
53 Similarly, the Court has also held, in that context, that the automatic termination of employment contracts of workers who meet the conditions as regards age and contributions paid for the liquidation of their pension rights has, for a long time, been a feature of employment law in many Member States. It is a mechanism which is based on the balance to be struck between political, economic, social, demographic and/or budgetary considerations and the choice to be made between prolonging people’s working lives or, conversely, providing for early retirement (see, by analogy, judgment of 28 February 2018, John, C‑46/17, EU:C:2018:131, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
54 Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the present case, the age limit of 65 may be regarded as sufficiently high to serve as the endpoint for the exercise of duties as an official in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see, by analogy, judgment of 5 July 2017, Fries, C‑190/16, EU:C:2017:513, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
55 Secondly, the age limit of 65 laid down by Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 appears to be capable of establishing an age structure that balances younger and older officials in the diplomatic service.
56 However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether such an age limit genuinely reflects a concern to attain in a consistent and systematic manner the aims pursued. In particular, as the Commission also emphasised, it is necessary to examine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is appropriate for achieving the aims sought in the light of the particular characteristics of the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in question, or whether, on the contrary, it indicates an inconsistency in the national legislation, which does not therefore satisfy the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 November 2010, Georgiev, C‑250/09 and C‑268/09, EU:C:2010:699, paragraph 56).
57 That being the case, it should be added that the possibility, pursuant to Article 98(3) of Law 3566/2007, of adopting a decree on the basis of a proposal from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to extend the period of office of officials in the diplomatic service holding ambassadorial rank, by reason of particular requirements of the service, by no longer than two years after they have completed 35 years of public service, but, in any event, not beyond the age of 67, does not appear to permit the inference that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is vitiated by an inconsistency. The possibility of such a career extension is capable of satisfying the aim pursued by that legislation, as indicated in paragraph 48 above, which admittedly consists in establishing an age structure that balances younger and older officials in the diplomatic service, but which also seeks to maintain a functional diplomatic service (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 July 2011, Fuchs and Köhler, C‑159/10 and C‑160/10, EU:C:2011:508, paragraphs 88 to 90), which it is, however, for the referring court to verify.
58 Moreover, the fact that the compulsory retirement age of 65 applicable to officials in the diplomatic service, such as IS, is not the same as that applicable to certain other categories of officials or public servants is also not capable, in itself, of calling into question the consistency of the national legislation at issue, in particular if it emerges, as the Greek Government emphasised in its written observations, that that difference follows a long-standing practice whereby officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs leave service at a younger age than officials belonging to other services, in order to take due account of the particular conditions in which the former officials perform their duties, which it is also for the referring court to verify.
59 As a second step, as regards whether Article 98(1) of Law 3566/2007 is ‘necessary’, it should be noted that it is for the national legislature, in exercising the broad discretion it enjoys in the fields of social and employment policy, to strike a fair balance between the various interests involved, bearing in mind that particular attention must be paid to the participation of older officials in professional life and thus in economic, cultural and social life. Retaining older workers in the active population promotes, inter alia, diversity in the workforce. The interest represented by the continued employment of those persons must, however, be taken into account in respecting other, potentially divergent, interests. Accordingly, when it is required to examine whether a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the intended aim, the national court must take into account not only the ability of the persons concerned to exercise a profession, but also the harm that that measure may cause to those who are more vulnerable on the labour market (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 October 2024, Anwaltsnotarin, C‑408/23, EU:C:2024:901, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
60 In the present case, it must be noted, at the outset, that the compulsory retirement of certain officials in the diplomatic service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is such as to allow a fair balance to be struck between access to that service for young officials and the continued employment of older officials in that service, inasmuch as that balance is capable of promoting full employment by facilitating access to the labour market and, consequently, of fostering generational diversity within the Greek diplomatic service.
61 However, account should also be taken of the specific situation of those older officials which is defined by in the limited possibility of guaranteeing their social and economic integration, given the specific nature of a diplomatic career, and by their vulnerability on account of their age.
62 In that regard, according to the case-law of the Court, legislation of a Member State providing for the compulsory retirement of certain workers upon reaching the age of 65 cannot be regarded as unduly prejudicing the legitimate claims of those workers as long as that legislation is not based only on a specific age, but also takes account of the fact that the persons concerned are entitled to financial compensation by way of a retirement pension at the end of their working life the level of which cannot be regarded as unreasonable, allowing the workers concerned, as the case may be, to be kept in post until the age of 67 with a view to completing 35 years of actual and pensionable public service (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 October 2007, Palacios de la Villa, C‑411/05, EU:C:2007:604, paragraph 73). That being so, it is for the referring court to assess whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the aims pursued.
63 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that officials in a diplomatic service are required to retire at the age of 65 upon completion of 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, unlike other officials and public servants who do not satisfy those conditions and who, as a result, are not required to retire at that age, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and that, in the legislative context of which it forms part and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the attainment of that aim.
Costs
64 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that officials in a diplomatic service are required to retire at the age of 65 upon completion of 35 years of actual and pensionable public service, unlike other officials and public servants who do not satisfy those conditions and who, as a result, are not required to retire at that age, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and that, in the legislative context of which it forms part and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the attainment of that aim.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Greek.
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.