A controversial law that allows British employers to force workers to retire at 65 will was challenged in Europe’s highest court today.

The charity Age Concern, through its Heyday retirement arm, said that the UK’s mandatory retirement age of 65 is illegal under European laws barring age discrimination.

Employers, workers and their legal advisers are hoping that the case, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, will provide clarity on the issue.

To date more than 200 age discrimination claims have been brought before employment tribunals in the UK, all of which have been put on hold pending the result of today's challenge.

Although European law bans age discrimination as a general principle, it allows countries the flexibility to introduce discriminatory measures such as mandatory retirement ages if they carry a wider justification.

In the UK, despite the introduction of anti-age discrimination legislation 19 months ago, employers can still force workers to retire at 65. Andrew Harrop, head of policy at Age Concern, said the law was illegal under European law and should be scrapped.

However, the UK Government argues that mandatory retirement is justified as it allows younger employees the opportunity to enter the workforce and gives businesses the chance to make succession plans.

The ECJ was asked to rule at the one-day hearing on whether these aims are sufficient justification.

Sue Ashtiany, an employment partner at Nabarro, the law firm, said that if Heyday succeeds in its challenge then companies will not be allowed to base any practices on age. Instead, they would have to justify each individual case of retirement on criteria such as performance and attendance.

Sarah Gregory, a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie, said the case is crucial because if Heyday wins, it could mean that the legal retirement age which many companies rely on will be scrapped.

Rachel Dineley, a partner at Beachcroft, the law firm, said: “Employers need to know where they stand on several issues related to retirement including considering the profile of their workforce, succession planning and pension provisions.

“The majority of businesses are affected by these issues in some way and the continuing uncertainty is highly unsatisfactory,” Ms Dineley said.

In a similar case earlier this year, the ECJ ruled that Spain, which also has a mandatory retirement age of 65, was justified under EU law because the rule helped reduce unemployment.

At the time, lawyers said the Spanish case was a serious blow to Heyday because it established that mandatory retirement ages are acceptable in certain circumstances.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Clifford Chance sets out to improve its public image
• Bennett starts 16-year sentence for Refco fraud
• FSA challenged over insider trading case