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.2.
The EAT had no doubt that the dismissal of an employee on such grounds is a legitimate aim - 'It is an entirely legitimate aim for an employer to dismiss an employee who has become redundant'. Smith LJ, on a renewed oral application on 15 March 2011, granted permission on the fifth ground.2.
As from 1 July 2006, there was to be a new Strategic Health Authority for the entire North West ('the NW SHA'); and it was proposed to have a single PCT covering the whole of Cumbria.
Mr Woodcock's post as Chief Executive of the North Cumbria PCTs was destined to disappear in the re-organisation.10.
"________________Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Civ 330Case No: A2/2010/2844IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALMr Justice Underhill (President), Ms K. This appeal, by Nigel Woodcock, is against an order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ('EAT') dated 12 November 2010 dismissing his appeal against a judgment of the Carlisle Employment Tribunal ('ET') dated 12 August 2009 dismissing his claim for age discrimination. On , when Mr Woodcock was just short of his 49th birthday (17 June), the Trust gave him 12 months' notice of dismissal on redundancy grounds.
The EAT panel comprised Underhill J (the President), Ms K. It gave such notice without first engaging in any consultation with him.
It would fall foul of the limitations upon justification explained in cases such as Hill and Stapleton.
On the unusual facts of this case, I would not, however, regard that as a correct characterisation.
He also notes that in this case the discrimination was direct and that in age discrimination, unlike other forms, direct treatment that is justified is not discriminatory at all.
After reviewing the facts, authorities, statutes and submissions he presents his conclusions under two principal headinga) he rejected submissions for the appellant that he had been unfairly treated as while there had been no formal consultation there was no principled basis for re-opening the ET's finding that consultation would have achieved nothingb) on the issue of costs being a legitimate justification for the discrimination he states at  that "If the Trust's treatment of Mr Woodcock is correctly characterised as no more than treatment aimed at saving or avoiding costs, I would accept that it was not a means of achieving a 'legitimate aim' and that it was therefore incapable of justification.
If it had been given after that birthday, it would not have expired until after Mr Woodcock was 50.
In such event, upon attaining 50 and being still in the Trust's employment, he would have been entitled to take an early retirement at an enhanced pension.
That was not a separate legal entity but was a single management structure serving three PCTs in North Cumbria.