ARTICLE
4 August 2017

Swiss Federal Administrative Court Confirms Age Discrimination In Governmental Educational Programs

RA
Rihm Attorneys

Contributor

Rihm Attorneys logo
Rihm Attorneys at law is a Swiss law practice with an international outlook and counseling focus around all aspects of entrepreneurship. For more than 30 years, the firm has advised and represented companies and entrepreneurs in complex transactions and restructurings, including technology transfer as well as in state court, arbitration and insolvency proceedings including mediation proceedings. Based in the centre of Zurich nearby Paradeplatz, Rihm Attorneys at law can draw upon a well-established global network of correspondent law firms in all major business centers. Through one of its partners, Prof. Dr. Karl Pilny, the firm has recently acquired a longstanding Asian practise. Our working languages are German, English, French, Italian, Japanese, Turkish, Serbo-Croatian and Albanian. According to Chambers, Best Lawyers and Who's Who Legal, Rihm Attorneys at law is leading in the fields of M&A, insolvency and employment & compensation benefits laws.
A general age restriction for candidates applying to an educational leadership program for music teachers offered by the Swiss Federal Government violates the constitutional principle of non-discrimination.
Switzerland Employment and HR

A general age restriction for candidates applying to an educational leadership program for music teachers offered by the Swiss Federal Government violates the constitutional principle of non-discrimination, according to a decision rendered by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court on July 11, 2017.

Despite excellent and long-standing professional experience in leading various music choirs, a 67 year old applicant was not admitted to the educational leadership program. The Federal Government argued that there were many younger candidates who are likely to serve much longer as musical directors, so using tax-payers monies to educate a 67 year old candidate would not be well spent.

The candidate argued that the age restriction infringed the principle of non-discrimination as laid down in Article 8 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, according to which no person may be discriminated - amongst others - on the basis of his age unless a qualified justification exemption exists. In a nutshell, the candidate held that professional competence should in any case prevail over age.

The Federal Administrative Court now shared the candidate's view. The court pointed out that fundamental constitutional rights can only be restrained under strict conditions, what requires in particular a basis in the law. Even though the "age-test" does not pertain to a historically ill-treated or politically excluded group (as it is usually the case with religion, gender or ethnicity discrimination), there is nonetheless a need for a qualified justification to overcome the "praesumptio" of unacceptable discrimination, the judges further held.

According to the Swiss Federal Administrative Court, both the Swiss Federal Constitution and the Swiss Federal Cultural Promotion Act do not contain the admission criterion of age. A related ordinance requires cumulatively a minimum age of 18, a Swiss residence domicile or a Swiss citizenship, and the capability of managing and leading musical courses and camps, which list is conclusive in the court's view. In other words, there are no further admission limitations in the law that would have authorized the federal agency in charge of the educational leadership program to establish any limitation of an upper age.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More